WEDJ

Just a prediction.

Because of the limited total interest in SPA and BPA, maybe, just maybe, the future will hold a merge of the two.

Benefits:
More attendance at meets
Larger difference between SPA/BPA and Antique classes.
Maybe SPA/BPA/VRCS can hold a single meet in each area.

downside:
To be competitive at SPA/BPA, retracts are needed.

Maybe the equating factor would be a point system penalty for retracts and/or pipes. Hmmmmm.......


The goal is to make older pattern a larger, more viable group across the country. Certainly, some compromises are necessary. I would like to see more and various planes at each meet, and more contestants. That means we have to accomodate a wider range of tastes. Myself, I would like to see retract, but not tuned pipes (I hated them). But I cannot see another new group called "pull 'em up but don't go too fast"

So, for the long-term health and growth of old-style pattern, I think some creative plans would be interesting avenues to look down. Just a seed of thought.

Discuss, please.

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

You don't have to have retracts or a pipe to be competitive!!!

Pattern as some have seem to have forgotten(harping on equipment). Is about straight lines, centering and geometry etc.ect.

This was proven in spades at the BPA contest in Huntsville. There were a couple of SPA legal planes there and in the right hands performed better than some of the BPA style aircraft(Piped & retracted).

To win a pattern contest you must fly consistantly and better than the other guy!!!

Type of aircraft and equipment is more of a personal choice!!! Penalties and restrictions just decrease the number of competitors.

I have flown pattern new and old and the consistant pilot always seem to come out on top, no matter what they are flying!!!


JMO
Gary

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

Yep of course they should be together. been saying that for years, SPA isn't interested. They are welcome to fly with us, but we are only welcome to fly with SPA if we have SPA legal planes. Not a problem, I don't want an SPA legal plane so I'll play with BPA. Not a big deal whatsoever.

One thought. Before anyone goes around making arbitrary penalties and restrictions for retracts or pipes....please...anybody prove to me that pipes and retracts are an advantage in todays world vs the SPA plane of today (which does not resemble the real ones of 30+ years ago).

There is no advantage. The arguement is utter BS. We proved it. ANYBODY who was there saw it with thier own eyes. Anybody who still thinks there is an advantage is simply ill informed. test it yourself. Put on a BPA contest and watch what happens. You'll have a very even mix.

-M

vintageflyer

My Feedback: (1)

I Love the idea of the SPA and the BPA. Both are great for keeping this part of the hobby alive. Not to mention we all get to gather around and discuss these beautiful, timeless creations with one another. But I do agree that having two seperate sanctions will not help to promote interest in the classic pattern aircraft of the era, if indeed promoting New interest is what the founders of these two groups have origanally set out to do.
If we want to gather interest in new hobbyist and grow, maybe we need to organize third less disciminating group. Heck we're all here sharing the same forum.

Maybe even a class where anything goes, as long as the aircrafts' outines stay within certain parimeters. Wow, maybe someone will show up with a fully moulded Eyeball. I would definately take leave from work to see that!!


DM

Deadstik

My Feedback: (8)

Mike has pretty much hit the nail on the head with his response...the BPA was brought about due to the limitations of equipment in the SPA... and that's fine. Those are the SPA rules per their organization and they should change them only when the members of that organization want too. I'm certain all SPA members will be welcome at BPA contests which is where the "merge" you speak of will take place. There really isn't much to discuss here as both groups have very different ideas of what a vintage pattern ship really is.


Dan

WEDJ

Wow, some really good points. I wanted to promote the idea of more and varied classic pattern flying. I'm glad experience has proven that retract/pipes are not necessary to be competitive, I just assumed they would fly better. I'm really looking forward to attending a SPA event or two next summer.

Personally, I'm thinking about installing retracts, but leaving them down for SPA events.

airbusdrvr

I second grcourtney's observation. I was an observer at the Hunstville event and it was the pilot not the plane.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Gary, I totally agree with all the statements in your post. The rest of you I either mostly or partly agree with. There were statements in each I wanted to discuss, so it was difficult to figure out who to quote Now in an effort to get EVERYBODY mad at me, I'll zero-in on the areas of disagreement--remember all the other things said I agree with.

First, if you want to see varied flying, (with pilots of all eras), the first BPA contest this past August was the best example of this I've ever seen. Properly powered, trimmed and flown BPA planes and SPA planes seemed quite competitive, and can even fly back-to back if judges always remember to keep in mind the statement Gary made about judging the GEOMETRY of the maneuver--not the differing speeds, (which in some cases were close), or the fact the wheels are up or down on any particular model. I really enjoyed seeing a wider variety of pattern aircraft--and especially appreciated that we wre all together enjoying ourselves in spite of 100-degree temps.

Knowing "Deadstick", I know where he is coming from with his statement, especially as it applies to the WM Intruder vs the Kirkland Intruder he produces. However to make a blanket statement that all SPA planes of today do not even RESEMBLE the planes from 30 years ago is misleading in my opinion; in most cases the differences are not all that obvious unless you're looking for them.

I personally have had my mind changed about the statement that BPA and SPA have vastly different ideas of what a pattern plane is. The retracts and tuned pipe are important ingredients for BPA enthusiasts, along with the high-revving 2 strokes and the sounds they make---these are all part of the BPA "experience". Meanwhile the predominate type of engine is a 4-stroke in SPA, (which I must remind everyone was due to the need to address noise problems at one flying site). With an earlier legal "window", many of the SPA planes, (but not all), never had retracts, much less a pipe. Those are the main differences, but there are many other areas of agreement, mostly having to do with size, and the TYPE of pattern being flown. As I said, for the most part the SPA-legal planes are earlier vintage, though there is some overlap. Yes there is SOME difference between the groups, but the gap isn't as wide IMO as painted in the post.

Finally, we don't need a third organization--it would dilute the pool of people we already have. We also don't need penalties etc etcas mentioned early on. One BPA pilot in a moment of candor admitted that the retracted landing gear was largely a "cool factor", and that it is just enjoyable to have the wheels retracted for looks on the model--there is little if any real aerodynamic benefit due to wheel well drag.

I think the experiment in Huntsville was very successful--I never thought it possible that the two types of planes could fly together---but they did, and I think we all got to know and respect each other more. It IS possible the two sides may come together more some time in the future, but things take time to evolve and work themselves out. In the meantime, the efforts of the Florida people sponsoring a combined SPA/BPA contest with a system in place to allow all planes to compete while satisfying all SPA requirements is a tremendous step in the right direction, adding to what was already started in Huntsville. Only time will tell where we will all wind up, but I like the way things are going.

Duane

MHester

My Feedback: (1)

The plane statement about resemblance was mine....and I stand by it, as I am a designer and I admit I see subtle differences much more clearly than the average guy (to some extent). Look at the "modern" taildragger Curare with a 4 stroke....point made

The "experiment" will be continued as there will be a BPA contest in Atlanta in the spring. Same rule set as the Huntsville contest. So get to work on those planes, details to follow.

-Mike

flywilly

My Feedback: (121)

The fact that we can have this discussion is a positive for anybody who likes flying 'outdated' pattern designs. 20 years from now (or sooner), the BPA may want to allow designs from more recent times. I think the real goal is to provide a competitve opportunity for (currently) non-competitive designs. Gary hit the proverbial 'nail on the head' about judging based strictly on the rule book criteria: a well executed and presented maneuver should be scored regardless of design be it a King Altair, Curare, Jeckyll or Focus. While I have to side with Mike Hester from an aesthetic perspective (a 4-stroke, fixed gear, tail dragging Curare offends the 'purist' in me), as long as I'm not penalized for being louder/faster/sleeker then it's all good. The more pilots who get involved, the better the long term health of the 'preservation' of 'antique' pattern!!
Just my 22 cents (adjusted for inflation )

WEDJ

This is a healthy discussion, I am enjoying it.

Nathan King

Bingo! Flying 'outdated' designs along with old patterns that modern competition does not offer. I don't see why one neutrally stable airplane has an extreme advantage over another. It's about the pilot's prowess. The aircraft they fly is their chosen instrument. Choose one you fly well with, and you'll be pretty competitive... period.

turbo.gst

My Feedback: (8)

I would love to go to an event and see BOTH. I could see doing a plane for both event types. I don't need much of an excuse to want another plane.

turbo

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

I must admit that personally I can't bring myself to build a taildragger pattern plane, but to me that is a question of personal taste, and I'm not going to criticize the other guy, (or SPA) for someone doing that. As you are probably aware if you've read Jim Kirkland's original articles on his Intruder, he stated the trike gear was "absolutely essential"---for the time. Since SPA places less K-factor emphasis on the takeoff and taxi, some pilots decided to save weight, (and increase performance as a result). It is an evolution as the plane follows the rules in effect--and SPA pattern goes all the way to 1975, so to make earlier planes a little more competitive, minor changes are allowed. In other words, because of the emphasis on Knife Edge in the later patterns, small changes are allowed to earlier vintage planes to allow a vertical rudder etc, taildragger etc--but the plane must closely resemble the original.

Again and again, the 4-stroke was a response having to do with noise at ONE flying site. The 4-stroke caught on after-the-fact because of the greater vertical performance associated with it. Some modern two-strokes are making a recent comeback.

SPA is more about competition than it is about exact replication of the vintage plane itself. As everyone knows, there was a lot of experimenting going on in the '60s, as competitors tried new things, (within the rules), to help performance. We make far less changes than they did.

The bottom line is that SPA tries to keep modifications small, and tries to retain the look of the original, but if you really want to strictly adhere to the planform of the original, then VR/CS is the only way to go----however their emphasis is NOT on competition--it is primarily on the airplane itself.

One thing that should be pointed out is that BPA allows totally new designs[X(], to compete if the pilot would like to come up with something new---so their emphasis is also on competition, not precise replication of a vintage plane. BPA doesn't try to be an AMA special interest group--the rules are quite loose about what is allowable, and that's why SPA planes can compete in a BPA meet, not the other way around. The focus of BPA is squarely on non-turnaround pattern with planes of a certain size and displacement, most of which happen to be historic pattern planes---but they don't have to be. The primary emphasis of the association isn't all that different from SPA, except that retracts and tuned pipes predominate, and SPA is more strict about legal planes, retracts etc etc at this point in time.

I'm not trying to change your opinion Mike, (though I'd like to), but I need to explain to newcomers to give them the whole picture of SPA, VR/CS, and BPA, so they can make up their own minds.

Duane

WEDJ

Nicely said, Duane

Deadstik

My Feedback: (8)

Duane,

Let's get back in the real world here.. get rid of the nose gear to "save weight and increase performance????" Please... The only reason for the tail dragger is so that the 15" prop (or larger) of an OS 91 four stroke can zoom off the ground without tearing up the prop.

As Mike noted, I did NOT make a comment concerning the looks of the SPA planes even though he is RIGHT. All I did was to comment that there were two very distinct differences in the BPA vs. the SPA type aircraft. To take a pre 1975 airframe and make any modifications necessary as long as it "looks like a duck" doesn't seem to me to be any type of strict rule at all. The only thing that Quacks on a World Models Intruder is the paint/whatkindakoteisthat job. The BPA has no "qualifications" for aircraft type even though I have heard a 72" wingspan limit has been discussed. The second difference is that retractable landing gear and tuned pipes are not just allowed but encouraged!!! I think this gives a bit better distinction to newcomers of the differences between the BPA and SPA.

At present I don't believe any of the BPA rules are set in stone and I think it will take at least of year of meets/contests to decide what, if any, "rules" need to be in effect. The main idea of the BPA is to bring back pattern as it really used to be. For the purists, it means pre 1984 designs with any type of power below 1.2 CI/retracts/pipes/flaps/spoilers. If someone wants to "roll their own", they too are welcome. I stand by my earlier comment that ..the BPA was brought about due to the limitations of equipment in the SPA... and that is accurate. I'm sure all SPA members will be welcome at all BPA events. I look forward to flying in both types of contests.


Dan

crankpin

My Feedback: (15)

crashlander

My Feedback: (10)

Crankpin:
It's a Duck; just came out of the water.
Just kidding. See you at the December contest.
Orlando

crankpin

My Feedback: (15)

Hey Orlando - Yes, I am coming up. I flew the Intruder four times yesterday, and in bad crosswind. The simulator I have been using has helped a lot. I flew the Phoenix series late 60's and early 70's up in Ohio. I have another Intruder on BO with Warrick's down in Plantation.

Practice-practice-practice and some more, just hope this one stays together, if not, I will bring a Phoenix. Start out in Novice, see if I can get anywhere. At my age now, it is fun, but back in those days, it was serious stuff.
See you all soon.

Vince

nxtdoor

My Feedback: (10)

It makes no sense to me to have a restriction in SPA on the year a given plane was designed and flown if you are allowed to alter it. These designs should not be altered to make them fly better. They are what they are, that's the whole point of using the old designs.

Retracts are mostly for looks. I just like a plane with retracts. It looks better to me and to think they aren't allowed on a design that incorporated them is wrong. Yes they can be more work, but that should be the decision of the builder. Retracts are not expensive in todays dollars. And to consider a deduct for retracts is not the answer. I also will not build a plane that had trike gear as a taildragger. Just doesn't look right.

I have read a lot about the fact that the rules were written to keep it cheap except that people are using expensive four strokes and running 30% nitro fuel. Niether of these is cheap.

At first I was encouraged to here about SPA since I flew pattern in the 70's, but my encouragement left me when I heard of all the alterations that were allowed and the lack of retracts. I think SPA should re-think these aspects. I would be encouraged again.


Jeff

spbyrum

Gentlemen

First, one should fly a tail dragger Curare before deciding how offended his "purist" should be. Dan, the nose wheel does, in fact, go to save weight in the nose. It's a balance issue. Nose wheels make great taxis. No one taxis any more. We don't because it wastes time. Long ago, it was decided that flying was more important than proving we could drive and park our planes.

I am a heretic in SPA. I am not offended by pipes. We do have neighbors, so I'd prefer they didn't SCREAM. I don't mind retracts, either. I'll gladly let any competitor carry the weight penalty and the potential failure points.

There is much made about messing with old designs. This is really over played. My Curares are a little fatter in the nose to allow for the broader beam of the 4-stroke. They're also a little longer to help balance the lump. I have learned by experience not to mess with dihedral, anhedral or moments as Hans and Hanno worked these all out the hard way. They couldn't mix out their mistakes.

Oh, there are no 15" props. A 14 here and there, but mostly 13s. The new Florida chapter may have the right idea. They'll fly some "Historic" classes with more modern planes and patterns to spread the fun.

crankpin

My Feedback: (15)

Jeff - My thoughts were exactly like yours, when I first heard about SPA, then BPA. I said the same things. Why no retracts ?
I am learning to fly these birds all over again. Then the BPA was formed. Want to fly retract's, ? Go to BPA. I decided to get a SPA plane together, and the Intruder ARF was a quick build, and it flys better then what I am capable of.

I have some retract planes here, and will use them in BPA when I get some skills back.
Vince

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

For the benefit of everyone else, I know Dan personally; he was nice enough to accept my offer to come to the first Asheville SPA meet, and he even donated one of his fine kits as a raffle prize. I've had him over to the house. I've taken every opportunity I can in my articles to promote his vintage model kits etc etc, so I certainly have nothing against him, Mike Hester, or anyone in BPA--even though I fly SPA-type planes, I am a supporter of BPA, and went to their first meet. It was a great experience.

When I make a statement either in my articles, or an RCU thread, to the best of my knowledge it is true--including the one about nose gears and saving weight. This is the reason given me by those I know and respect. Maybe I am naive, but I believe what they have shared with me. It frankly bothers me when my truthfulness is being questioned.

There is a lot of discussion about engines, props, and fuel among SPA pilots----information is freely shared, and to the best of knowledge, nobody uses a "15" or larger prop..." on an O.S.91. It may be possible, but I'm not aware of it. Most use a variation of a 13 or 13.5" prop. I don't even think a .91 can effectively handle a prop that large and be in its max power range, which is what it's all about. I personally have used a 14 X 8 APC on my King Altair, and it has a trike gear.

If I have offended anyone by my comments it was not my intent. I am merely trying to correct comments that may be honestly believed by those saying them, but are not factual, and may mislead others.

Duane

locolobot

Being a relative newbie to both RC flying and pattern flying I have tried the taildragger versus trike gear on a pattern plane. I will agree that taildragger looks funny on a pattern plane that is why I reversed and changed it to a trike gear plane again. It had nothing to do with weight or flying ability or ground clearance for a prop, just looks. I have yet to compete in a SPA event due to certain physical restrictions that I must overcome first but I have been to one or two and enjoyed it very much. I recommend SPA to any and all. Just bring a plane and fly or just come and socalize. I think all will agree it is for the fun and not for world class competition trophies. The trophy is a bonus if you are good enough to get one.

Free Bird

This statement says a lot. I know there's the "3% rule", but in my eyes what really defines 3%? To me, the designs should be as true to the original as possible. If it has retracts, so be it. If it was a trike gear design, it should remain in a trike gear configuration, converting to a taildragger is a sin. The only design changes allowed should be to accomodate today's engines.

This discussion has been very good with lots of good thoughts.

FB