crankpin

My Feedback: (15)

Hey, I hear there is a big bruhawho going on with SPA planes, electric's going to have their own class, vs nitro ? If there is merchandise for winner's, how is it divvied up ? First place electric novice, First place nitro novice: ??? The electric winner get's the fuselage, the nitro winner gets the wing and tail?

Next, the election of officer's. Is there a nominating committee ? I renewed for 2010, there was a little piece in there, vote your choice, the position's were three names, check 'em off. Anyone else ? I hear there are modified OS91's in the mix ??

Looks like SPA is having growing pains. The present founder's want to maintain control ? If later year's planes are allowed in, like the Tipo's, etc., this could bring a whole new breed of flyers in to the organization, that would demand change ? When these later planes could come on, it is not going to be the 4 chl Kwik-Fli with minimum expense.

Figure this. Full house SPA plane, retract's, good engine, good radio, few bucks. But, the kicker here, is the travel expense. IMO, is a guy flying a tweety bird going to spend $500+ on a weekend of travel. Would the competitor that puts major bucks in to a SPA plane, travel and spend the dough ? Very possible.

I am OK with anything, and do not care who runs the show, but maybe we should get later model SPA planes into the mix, it will certainly cover the attrition rate. SPA wants to grow, and the Mickey Walker's of this group certainly put their best foot forward, to start this organization, and are to be commended for this. I think SPA needs to attract more members, as it is not a little club anymore. Combine SPA/BPA, this will make it interesting. Instead of having a class for electric's vs. nitro, have a class for BPA and SPA. I think this is a control issue, maybe if the present founder's lose control, could SPA eventually diminish?

Crank

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

I would not have an electric and glow class. That will be subdividing an already small class of people. How do you establish a motor rule for the e-guys?? I have no clue on that one. Maybe limit them to cell counts, or battery capacity? Maybe prop size limits for electrics. These are just ideas, do not shoot me.
Travel expense is a very real problem for me. I have several SPA/BPA kits that will be built no expense spared, but I can stretch that out over a few months. The one time whack of 500+ dollars on a weekend is pretty tough. I would love to fly more than on contest, but at current travel prices, that makes it very hard to do.
I think that BPA planes should have their own class. The current two classes, then add a third class from 1976 to the start of AMA flying turn-around. Naturally, the BPA class would have to allow retracts, pipes, and RE engines. I still think that all of the classes should allow retracts. They are just not that expensive these days. Heck, you can get POS ARFs that have decent retracts for next to nothing.

AndyKunz

Have them use a similar prop to a nitro entrant (allow prop brand of choice, but comparable diameter and pitch) and tach it to not exceed a nitro's RPM. The power it takes to spin a similar prop at a similar RPM will be close enough. They can achieve that using whatever motor/voltage combo they want, but they'll basically be limited to the same amount of power as a nitro.

I never thought we'd see the day that we have to restrictor-plate electrics to give the nitro guys a fighting chance!

Andy

AllTheGoodNamesAreTaken

My Feedback: (180)

I think you're missing the "spirit" of the SPA. I think Micky's intention is/was to create a legitimate, professionally run competition using airplanes of a certain era to capture the essence classic pattern flying - like they were in the 60's and 70's. To be honest, I don't think fourstokes have a place in the SPA, and I really don't think electrics do either.

[link=http://www.seniorpattern.com/whythespa.asp]Why the SPA?[/link]

ChiefK

I'm with ya on this issue. The original essence of SPA was pretty close to right on. Beautiful pattern designs - screaming .61 2 strokes - big, smooth maneuvers - lots of fun to fly and impressive to watch. I still think Micky missed the call on retracts. Everyone in every class was using them. They're not expensive or complicated, and they're much more in alignment with the KISS principle than where we are now. Powerful .91's - high nitro - e-power - etc. There's no longer any similarity to the era we're interested in. I'm NOT going to leave SPA, but I'm going to compete using the original concept.

ChiefK

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

On the most basic level I agree that 4strokes and electrics do not fit the them of the SPA. I can live with electrics better than 4 strokes since you have to alter so much to get the 4strokes to balance. I am sorry, 4 stroke tail draggin Dirty Birds are wrong! (or anything similar) You can buy a .61 and a pipe cheaper than an OS .91 4 stroke, so it can't be about cost anymore. At least the electrics can be concealed and the plane will look like a 'normal' SPA plane.
The problem is that they are here and have to be dealt with.

NM2K

My Feedback: (14)

Were it my choice, there would be no electrics or four-strokes. If you want to fly either of those, the venue is AMA pattern.

Mickey Walker founded SPA, IIRC. It is his baby as far as I'm concerned. I appreciate his efforts, as I'm sure all the rest of you do. SPA could do no worse than to be like the ARRL (American Radio Relay League). Ever notice that year after year, decade after decade, K1ZZ, Dave Sumner, is the CEO (or whatever the highest office is)? I see nothing wrong with that since I have the choice of joining or not joining. Same with Mickey Walker. If I truly didn't like what he was doing, I wouldn't be spiritually supporting the SPA. It's been a while since I've sent a check. I keep forgetting to do so. My bad.


Ed Cregger

ChiefK

The 4-stroke rule was supposedly based on the thought that the .91's were the power equivalent of a good .61 2-stroke. That just ain't so. How many .61's have you seen that can swing a 13x8 prop with any authority at all? Now the electrics are being sized to approximate the .91's, and the 4-strokers are concerned they'll lose their power edge, and the 2-strokers are left further behind. Cost is a whole nother issue, but the stretching and distortion of the airplanes is really not good. They just don't look like the airplane they're supposed to be. I think it's unlikely that the genie can be recorked in the bottle, so the only way to "deal" with these things is to be a better pilot. The playing field is simply not even, so being "as good" a pilot will generally not do it for us.

ChiefK

Skip

My Feedback: (76)

I would gladly sell my OS 91s, build a stock Dirty Birdy or similar than deal with the oversize and heavy OS 91 four stroke for SPA. I use this engine because it's the engine of choice, powerful and fairly quiet. I have seen some guys run the 2 strokes in SPA and win. They are good fliers and would win no matter what. I am going to abide by the rules so that I can compete but I don't totally agree with all of them. Retracts are a fun item but can be a pain in the butt on rough fields. I, personally, am not in love with tail draggers but they simplify things and help with the c/g with a heavy engine up front by eliminating the NG and cables etc. If they allow electrics it would seem to me that they would defeat the spirit of the SPA but then again so do 4-strokes . What to do? Allow them to compete amongst other electrics would seem reasonable. I have electric SPA planes so I willl wait for the final decisions to be made and plan accordingly. There comes a time when the rulemakers have to re-asess the original plan in the creation of the SPA or allow some changes to take place. It is only natural for a popular concept to reach a point like this.It will be interesting to see what transpires. Myself ,I would like to see airplanes up to 1980 allowed. !! But nobody asked for my opinion.

ChiefK

I'm going to be "hard core" about this. I don't intend to run .91's or electrics. I do plan to compete and enjoy the experience. I have a Deception "scratch" build just starting and a Webra Speed .61 waiting to power it.

ChiefK

John Hancock

I am a new guy at this pattern game (I started in Sept. '09) so I guess I don't understand why more power is that big of an advantage. It seems to me, if it has the power to make a good sized loop, that is enough! All the power in the world won't keep those suckers on top of each other or in the same place! I'm going out and practice with my Sato .72 and ugly stick. You guys fight it out 'till my skills catch up! John

ChiefK

You're on the right track.... keep at it and we'll see you maybe next summer. For experienced pattern pilots, power is yet another control function... to control the speed of the airplane at a constant rate through each maneuver. Yes... you can do everything required at full throttle... you'll be able to do them better once you can control the speed at a roughly constant rate. That's also why building a light airplane also helps so much... you can perform the upside vertical parts of maneuvers at the same speed as the downside parts. The size of the maneuvers also tends to be larger in competition... making the verticals much more critical.

ChiefK

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

SPA...one perspective

The SPA or Senior Pattern Association or "Why"...

"...In March of 1991 I called a meeting of my old friends and they were very excited about it so we formed the association, in March 1991. The first Masters Championships were held in October 1991.

From this point on we have continued to grow. We try to keep things as simple as possible, and keep things as they were in the sixties and seventies. Mickey Walker..."

This passage was just taken from the very fine SPA website, "Why SPA section" as written by Mickey Walker.

Rusty's Translation- Mickey likes inexpensive, simple as possible and keep them as they were in the 60's and 70's...OR LIKE HE AND HIS FRIENDS WANT THE RULES...he has friends that are like minded.

SPA reality check- The SPA (Mickey and his friends) have arbitrarily decided the following based on the current rules:

- 4 strokes are less expensive than 2-stroke .61s (only OS, Saito 4-strokes...)

- The letters YS are not recognized in the SPA alphabet and therefore are not allowed.

- The pattern airplanes of the 60's and 70's did not have retracts...ever.

- There are no records of the dimensions of the airplanes of the 60's, 70's and probably 80's including decalage, fuselage length, tail moment allowing for profound interpretation by the SPA competitor to be "in compliance". Remember rules just create confusion and are not simple.

What is one to do? Go to another sand box.

If you want to fly an AUTHENTIC 60's,70's or 80's pattern airplane you will choose another sand box to play where your toys are not only allowed but embraced and celebrated for you are the "prettiest girl at the dance" and we want to just be around you.

Special interest groups are by definition a group of like minded individuals. Some groups benefit from growth, some do not. CONSUMERS of classic pattern stuff benefit from greater numbers of participants based on their "demand" which foster a greater supply of more diverse products at probably lower prices or better values (thank you capitalism!) whereas COMPETITORS may benefit from fewer competitors or can avoid the ever changing complex rules of competing or being competitive (continuing to win) with a set of rules they make up themselves.

If you want to compete in authentic classic pattern, I sincerely believe that there will be an ever growing number of Ballistic Pattern Association/"Classic Pattern-Unlimited" events added each year due to the reality of "demographics" and the "cost per second of fun".

"Demographics"- If you liked toy pattern airplanes in the 70's for all the reasons including parents, friends, magazines and couldn't play because you were too young or cost...you now are not young and probably have or beginning to have enough money to have any (10) classic pattern airplanes that exist. This number (number of aging classic pattern freaks) will increase for the next 10 or so years.

"Cost per second of fun" A completely authentic 60's, 70's, 80's pattern airplane can be created for a fraction of the cost of a competitive IMAC or AMA/F3A pattern airplane. My MK Champion, a very special, fine flying model sports a $65 used Enya .60, $140 for the kit...all purchased on Buy-Bay...way less than $500 for lots of fun per cost. My QQ 120" Yak was every bit of $5,000+ RTF and my shiny new F3A machine is $4,000+ RTF.

Attend the 2010 "Chicago Classic Pattern Shoot-Out of Champions Masters Tournament"...just for fun and fly ANYTHING that remotely is a classic pattern design...just come and have fun!

Rusty Dose
Team Futaba
Hooked on Classics

JeffH

My Feedback: (43)

Must be careful with two sandboxes...Might end up like the CART/IRL fiasco where everybody lost. Not enough cars/teams or fans to support either for the long haul.

That being said, I would come to your meet in a heartbeat if I was closer.

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Here we go again. Another thread where everybody, (including many who are not even SPA members, or have ever personally attended an SPA meet), chime in about SPA telling the world what's wrong with it, and how it should be. It's a free country, this IS a forum for ideas...that fine, but SPA's "growing pains" are not going to be settled by outsiders, or on a forum such as this.

Yes, there has been a great deal of "frank discussions" on the SPA Discussion List about how best to deal with the increasing number of electrics competing in a way that's fair to everyone. I'm not going to say that I agree with everything and all the proposed rules thus far, but the "jury is still out". The Discussion List actually serves the purpose of "hashing out" internally, (within the membership), issues that the organization faces. For many years there were very little in the way or rules changes. Now with increased growth, (and the increased number of opinions that go with growth), new rules have to be developed to deal with problems that come up. The Discussion List, and all the talking that goes on there, is actually a useful way to gage opinion from within the membership. The Board of Directors has taken this feedback and used it in the past to come to good decisions for the group. This has happened before, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be the case this time.

This forum is not the place to discuss how SPA should be; it should be done within SPA itself. Forums like this are filled with half-truths that are presented as facts, but misrepresent the truth. Rusty, I've met you personally and you seem to be a good guy, but you are not even an SPA member, nor do you have the background knowledge of SPA and how its members think to make such black & white statements. You don't know exactly HOW we got where we are now, or who proposed the rules changes and for what reason. Part of what you say is correct, but your conclusions, (in addition to being sarcastically worded) are twisted and will mislead many people. Let's just look at this one example:

SPA reality check- The SPA (Mickey and his friends) have arbitrarily decided the following based on the current rules:

- 4 strokes are less expensive than 2-stroke .61s (only OS, Saito 4-strokes...) TRUTH...4-strokes are quieter than 2-strokes, that's why they were allowed; it was not something everybody wanted, but one of our primary competition sites had a new noise requirement, and it seemed 4-strokes were the best way to meet that requirement. At the time it was thought the .91 4-stroke equalled the .61 2-stroke in performance, (look at the engine suggestions for kits in the '90s). That's what evidence at the time pointed to. Later the rule was just left in effect. The tuned pipe was not allowed because it is a performance accessory, and added performance equipment was excluded in the pursuit of "simple and inexpensive". Of course 4-strokes cost more than 2 strokes, but compromises for the sake of reducing noise won out.

- The letters YS are not recognized in the SPA alphabet and therefore are not allowed. SEE BELOW

- The pattern airplanes of the 60's and 70's did not have retracts...ever. TRUTH...A statement like this is an insult to Mickey. He chose to use simpler, less expensive L.G.... period. As founder of the organization doesn't he have the right? The "golden age of pattern as defined by Mickey was the period 1965-1976. Retracts started becomming common about 1970, and pipes came after the 1976 date

- There are no records of the dimensions of the airplanes of the 60's, 70's and probably 80's including decalage, fuselage length, tail moment allowing for profound interpretation by the SPA competitor to be "in compliance". Remember rules just create confusion and are not simple.

Allowing changes to the original planform, (small at first...just enough to compensate for the heavier 4-stroke engines), may have been the single biggest mistake made by SPA leadership over the years...but they were NOT Mickey Walker's "and his friends" idea. The leadership at that time decided to put the emphasis on COMPETITION rather than the airplane itself. Whether or not that should have been done is debatable, but the decision has been made long ago. One thing to keep in mind is that SPA maneuvers cover the ENTIRE PERIOD to January 1976; many of the earlier designs were not designed for the later maneuvers...hence the decision was made..for better or worse...to allow "minimal" changes. In some cases this has recently been taken to the extreme by some, but this issue has not been addressed...yet.

Because you are a smart fellow, you know that three out of four of these statements are misrepresentations of the truth. The 4th has to do with a rule banning the use of the type carb that YS uses. I'm not defending the rule per se' but it was put in place in order to provide a more level playing field. If YS engines were allowed, everyone would be using the more expensive YS engine, and "inexpensive and simple" was one of Mickey's core principles

One thing you don't know is that Mickey Walker nearly left the organization he founded because of the changes that were being made. He respectfully withdrew from active involvent for a period. Over time he decided to return to the organization as "founder emeritus" because of other reasons such as friendship, and wanting to compete again with an organization where everyone is treated well, and having a good time means more than winning. SPA members have a profound respect and appreciation for Mickey Walker. Without him, we wouldn't have this fine organization that so many of us enjoy.

We can't "put the toothpaste back in the tube", about possible mistakes that have been made over the years, but people that take pot shots at SPA are missing the central point...friendly competition with vintage aircraft, (modified or not who really gives that much of a damn). Don't miss out on the fun by complaining about all the "faults" of SPA. It might make people feel good, (maybe superior), to judge all the interal discussions on an RCU forum, but it serves no real purpose. I have enough faith that the BOD of SPA will make the best choices in the end to ensure that everyone who competes will have a good time, and that's the BOTTOM LINE for most of us.

SUAF or form another "sandbox" if you want. You don't have to "blow out everyone else's candle" to let your own light shine.

Duane Wilson

LS171Malibu

My Feedback: (16)

Well said. It troubles me that through carefully reading ALL the rules over two years ago, in planning our clubs first "SPA" contest, I was able to counter those statements in my own mind. With so many special interest groups in this hobby, you would think that a guy could find some activities he could enjoy, or create one that would be satisfactory. I understand that with any competition a person is looking for the "edge", but when this turns into a flood of emotion and even rage, that is no fun. After trolling this very board for what seemed like years, I built an original Kaos, with an FSR .61, because at the time that was my idea of a SPA model. Our club (Fort Worth Thunderbirds) hosted our third SPA event this fall, and after bringing the Kaos out from storage, it needed some repair I didn't have time to do. I chose to use my own design of a "modified" Ugly Stick, and was able to place well. I believe that if you build a plane that conforms to the rules, all the while truely enjoying the SPA concept, and practice the sequences, you will have fun and place well too.

John Hancock

Thank you Duane. Well said. John Hancock SPA 469

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

".4-strokes are quieter than 2-strokes, " kingaltair


not true as stated... a 2 stoke and quet pipe are not noisier than 4c 91 (especially when the exhausts have been hogged out for more power)

I will put my hanno set up on either of my current bpa planes up against any of the current 4c in the spa for sound...


having said that "if you want to change the SPA join them and lobby from within"
if not leave them alone.



gary


gary

ChiefK

I hear all the explaining, but the fact is that SPA has evolved into something very different from the organization Mickey Walker started. I like Mickey's vision best, so that's what I'll be following ( I'm sure that won't be a problem for anybody ), and I won't have the problem of finding 13 1/2 x 9 props for the beast on the front end, and I won't have to stretch and distort the airplanes I fly. The level playing field does not exist anymore, but I do plan to have fun anyway. Everyone can sort of do whatever they want now. It makes for more members, but it's kind of disappointing at the same time. No, I'm not interested in BPA.... I didn't use tuned pipes then and I don't plan to start now.

Blake, that's a great looking Kaos. I can't recall seeing a nicer one.

Duane, I certainly agree with your comments as well, although I not sure that "going back" is possible from within or without. I wasn't really lobbying for change anyway, just expressing an opinion, and didn't want to gum up the internal SPA email group on this issue.

LS171Malibu

My Feedback: (16)

Thanks ChiefK

kingaltair

My Feedback: (4)

Chief K-There is absolutely nothing that will keep you from competing and doing well, (especially in Novice and Sportsman) with a standard-built plane and a 2-stroke. One thing that I left out of the first response was to mention that as far as I know, Mickey still competes with a standard plane and a two stroke...he is true to his own convictions about what SPA should be. Actually the modifications usually don't cause much controversy within SPA itself. Most of the critical rhetoric is reserved for threads such as this. As newcomers actually start to get involved, they usually get a better understanding of what SPA is all about, and personal differences in philosophy tend to move more to the background. I've seen this repeatedly, and none of these folks feel they made a mistake by competing in SPA events.

The level playing field DOES still exist because information on what so and so might have done to his plane or engine is pretty common information. If you have a mind to, you can copy whatever someone else does. In reality, except for a couple glaring examples where the plane has really been modified beyond what can reasonably pass for stock, most mods are still relatively small, and don't upset most people. The engine of choice is the O.S. 4-stroke. Mods to the engine may increase RPMs a bit to give you better verticals, but they won't put you in the winner's circle.

4-strokes are quieter than 2-strokes, " kingaltair
not true as stated... a 2 stoke and quet pipe are not noisier than 4c 91 (especially when the exhausts have been hogged out for more power)

Gary....How is it going? You have to take the sum total of everything I wrote, not just pick out one sentence to make your point about equal quietness. A STOCK 4-stroke is PERCEIVED to be quieter than a stock 2-stroke, (meaning the muffler that comes with it). If you carefully read the comments about tuned pipes above, you will remember they are not allowed because of the "performance accessory" nature of the pipe, and because pipes were not seen to the best of my knowledge until the start of the BPA era. As I said earlier, Mickey stressed the idea of "simple and inexpensive" above everything else, (and still sticks with that concept personally). The compromise to allow the more expensive 4-strokes came about due to the need to reduce noise, and for no other reason. Once used however, pilots quickly found out that performance improved as well.

The two-stroke is making a comeback, and even the Jett 2-stroke is allowed with its standard muffler.

The electric issue will be resolved eventually, but it might take awhile to iron everything out. In the meantime we will continue to fly and have a good time at each contest.

Duane

BTW...Blake....Agree with Chief K that I think you have the prettiest looking Kaos I've ever seen. Great color combination.

ChiefK

Quote from Duane's last post:

"The level playing field DOES still exist because information on what so and so might have done to his plane or engine is pretty common information. If you have a mind to, you can copy whatever someone else does. In reality, except for a couple glaring examples where the plane has really been modified beyond what can reasonably pass for stock, most mods are still relatively small, and don't upset most people. The engine of choice is the O.S. 4-stroke. Mods to the engine may increase RPMs a bit to give you better verticals, but they won't put you in the winner's circle."


Duane,

Of course, pilot differences are the major factor in who wins and who doesn't.... but, as in any competitive sport, any edge helps. In this case, power. The 4 stroke generates more power than the 2 stroke (by observation, turning a 13 1/2 x 9 prop vs a 12 x 6 or 12 x 7 for the 2 stroke). I have an O.S. .75AX in a Ultimate biplane turning a 14 x 6 prop fairly well, but it still doesn't seem to compare well to the O.S. .91 4 stroke. Now the electric is being sized as it compares to the 4 stroke and the 2 stroke is not allowed any power "enhancements" but the 4 stroke can have "mods". The 2 stroke .61 was supposed to be the standard, but the E-guys are trying to use the 4 stroke .91 as the standard for obvious reasons.... more available power. Again, just my observations, I'm planning to stay with Mickey's standard, win or lose. I don't really think the airframe mods provide any real edge because I believe the original designers had already optimized performance as much as possible within the rules then in play. The current airframe mods done to adapt to the larger/heavier engines are just bandaid fixes (my opinion - maybe I'll change my mind once I'm at the flight line competing) It's just the aesthetics that I don't care for.

See you in Ashville next summer. Greensboro too, I hope.

BERUSTY

My Feedback: (3)

SPA...opinion's are helpful and appropriate!Kingaltair,

- I have previously been a member of the SPA.

- Tuned exhaust systems were added in 1976 and used by Miller, Brown, Radcliff, Mueller, Chidgey...mandatory to compete by 1979 due to performance realities AND Mickey's statement says through 1979.

- The World Models Intruder is a fine model and it is very, very different than the original Intruder by Kirkland. The SPA was responsible (you) for getting them to continue making this model and it is a celebrated eligible model.

- Retracts were used in the early 70's.

- There will be models flown in SPA contests in 2010 which will be highly modified...great...they just are not the original, but allowed...this is the definition of arbitrary.

This thread is very relevant to assist moderlers who are building airplanes and commiting to attend events in 2010. Don't build a Dirty Birdy, Curare, Tiporare, Compensator with retracts and a pipe and expect to fly in an SPA event.

Rusty Dose
Team Futaba

jmb52760

Could I build my Curare with retracts and a pipe, swap the pipe for the stock muffler, and keep the retracts down to fly SPA?

grcourtney

My Feedback: (1)

I get you. Duane, And I do understand what you meant. (Performance enhancement! ( accessory) by that you mean like blue printing and porting?????) he he


gary