Question - since many have asked for the SPA to increase the plane age until 1980 , what planes would this include ?

also how many would like to see retracts ?


Now before the spa guys jump me, I'm on a fact finding mission

scott
spa 239

Greetings,

If you'd allow me to speak my piece from halfway around the world, when it's only likely that I'll only ever turn up and compete in an SPA event in the States as a once-in-a-lifetime fun experience...

Taking it to 1980 would allow two-stroke ships designed for rear exhaust .60 two-stroke engines with the pipe running along the top of the fuselage, like the Magic and Arrow (the rear-exhaust successors of the Curare and Atlas respectively) and possibly, from the Japanese stable, the Skymaster. I don't know which year the Skymaster appeared, it may have come after 1980.

These ships have a following but, to my mind, they were kind of an interim solution to the packaging problem of how to neatly design a fuselage around tricycle retracts and a tuned pipe. In my opinion, the most elegant solution arrived when ships appeared with the pipe running down the bottom of the fuselage and the nose gear retracting next to the header, like the Cosmos, Aurora, Atlanta, Summit III, LA-1 etc. I don't know when those appeared, but I doubt any of them were seen before 1983. When they did appear though, they were still very much in the spirit of the 1970's designs and still pretty much the same size - fuselage lengths being stretched, but wingspan remaining within two or three inches of the earlier designs.

Of course, at the same time other designers went the way of simplicity with taildragger gear and much simpler design, like Prettner with the Calypso and Matt with the Joker and Saphir, and since those were also originally designed for piped .60 two strokes and had wingspans below 70 inches, we all love them too, don't we?

My guess is that, when powered with .90 four-strokes or electric power and fitted with modern lightweight fixed landing gear as allowed by the current SPA rules, Atlases, Curares, Auroras, Skymasters and Jokers can pretty much compete against each other despite having been originally designed over a decade apart - especially given the latitude the SPA allows in modifying the original design. Of course the Kwik Fly's and similar models from the late '60's would be outclassed, but it seems to me they're just as outclassed against the 1970's Atlases, Curares, Phoenices etc. under the current SPA rules.

Myself, I would like to see a venue for pretty much anything designed to compete in F3A powered by a .60 two-stroke. That includes all the designs people in this forum love. Of course I don't insist that they actually be powered with .60 two-strokes. My guess is that much of the SPA's success is owed to the fact that most people today want a powerplant that is more flexible and easier to handle on the ground and in the air than a piped .60 two-stroke, and allowing .90 four-strokes and electric power has encouraged people to invest in building models, practicing and competing in the SPA.

As far as retracts are concerned, why not leave it to individual choice and allow them if the original design had them? Retracts were only an advantage in the days of fixed piano wire tricycle gear; they're not necessarily an advantage in this era of lightweight, airfoiled carbon fibre fixed taildragger gear. A Curare with a modern lightweight taildragger gear probably has the advantage versus another Curare with a tricycle retract setup, so it can't be argued that allowing retracts increases the cost and complexity of competing. A competitive pilot would probably go for fixed gear; it would probably be the nostalgics who want to fly a ship like it was flown back in the day that would go for retracts.

Myself, I'd build a ship with retracts and a piped two stroke .60, try and compete that way and see how I do with a setup that's pretty much like how these planes were set up back in the day. I'm sure anyone building the same design with a .90 four-stroke or electric power, and lightweight fixed gear, would have an easier time of building, practicing and flying, and beat the crap out of me in a contest. But I don't mind, in the end it's all about having fun!

With best regards,

George

I'm in the same boat as George right now but would go for retracts.

Why didn't you include the pipe option?

Ron

Maybe the SPA ought to be renamed the CPA (Classic Pattern Association) allowing how models used to be built and configured back when they were designed - retracts, pipes, designs as recent as '80's conceived for 60 2-strokes and so forth. Then, people of my generation might actually consider getting involved in the CPA (not that there is any of it going on in this country... []).

I don't expect to build a 10% duck (no offense) with a 4-stroke anytime in my life - not that it matters...

David.

Count me in on the retracts, but not so much on the pipe.

Warning- Soapbox alert- You've been warned-

Let's put SPA/BPA/Whatever divisions aside for the moment. Let's focus on the "big picture" here., let's just call it "Classic Pattern" for now. Like the forum name.

Why "Classic pattern? Because modern "F3A" pattern isn't pattern- like we did it. (Remember- one man's opinion).

$2500.00 airframes? Are you kidding me?

Some of us just don't dig it. Does anyone remember Formula 1 pylon racing. I do. And I say remember, because it is no longer around. Why? It turned into such a high dollar, elitist activity that it imploded upon itself. and yes I knew that game well. I worked for/hung with/help out/drank beer with the best of them. Yet Q-500 soldiers on. It is a practical, yet highly competitive event that mere mortals can do without being sponsored by a high dollar team.

This, and remember that I am on a soapbox here, is where I see "mainstream pattern heading. Maybe not tomorrow, but somewhere over the horizon.

Classic pattern fills the niche for mere mortals to fly pattern. And cool pattern too. Not in a "box"(opinion). One maneuver per pass, the way it was intended(opinion). The larger share of classic pattern enthusiasts are likely guys like me, who got out for one reason or another (family, career, prison, etc) and now that the kids are gone, had some time and maybe some resources to go back and do something that they were once passionate about. Then came the shockeroo. What happened to my beloved pattern?

I think that classic pattern will continue to grow for some period of time, as fliers as described in the above paragraph continue to re-discover their old passion. And then wane to some degree as we age and die off. There will be a certain amount of new blood to come in and bolster the numbers, and maybe even become a resurgent generation somewhere in the future. It has a strong appeal.

But for now, we would be wise to band together. I suggest classic pattern be an umbrella of sorts, covering the various sub-interests (SPA/BPA/MPA/whatever) like pylon is sort of an umbrella covering it's sub interests (Q-500/Q-40/whatever).

OK, off the box. I apologize for stepped-on toes. F3A has it's place. Peace.

-Robert

didn't i see that one of the japanese arfs are $4500 per airframe. maybe the neutrino or something. i need to get me a few of those.

Man for the kind of money, I could start buying allover again and have me a pretty nice collection of classic kits, engines, and just about anything else. I hope I'm didn't let the cat out of the bag for some with that statement. Plus I would know that I'm putting my money in the hands of a hard working Joe that might possibly need it.

I have second thoughts about the retracts. I think I woulld go with the pipe for the extra power due to the OS 91's power edge. JMHO


Ron

<div style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt"><span>"Classic pattern fills the niche for mere mortals to fly pattern. And cool pattern too. Not in a "box"(opinion). One maneuver per pass, the way it was intended (opinion). The larger share of classic pattern enthusiasts are likely guys like me, who got out for one reason or another (family, career, prison, etc) and now that the kids are gone, had some time and maybe some resources to go back and do something that they were once passionate about. Then came the shockeroo. What happened to my beloved pattern?"
<span style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Arial; mso-fareast-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA">Right on the money Robert!
I'm an oldie pattern nut too, admittedly shocked when I read things like "the new Fandagle for FA3 at only $3995!&rdquo; C'mon, only $3995, even at $1795, plus engine and hardware, radio, field support stuff, your dropping $4000 (likely more) to put up one plane. I still say say one can put up a "classic" (w/o buying a 35 year old kit for $400-$500 you know where) 10cc pattern ship for under $500; $750 with a decent radio. Granted, I'mpresuming you do at least some building, set-up, radio install, etc. For $2000 I will have two very nice ships and a good beater for practice too.I must say it is disappointing toread much of the bantering back and forth in some other forums; but Iplan toget to the contests to re-enjoy some of the best times of my past. I flew a fixed gear pipe-less Tiger Tail and competed well against others with retracts and pipes.Afterthat, aBootlegger with retracts and a piped Rossi, it gaveme a lift but I still didn'tget past Chip H. at the 80&rsquo; Nats. I still think we relied on the pipes to get more oomph out ofthe engines turning 11 - 7 or 7 1/4 props. May not need them with the 12 -6 set up; either way I can live withor withoutthemregardless of what the next flyer chooses for his/her ship.Asothers have said, to promote Classicit has to be reachable without forgoing the mortgage payment this month (I too remember how pylon racing came and went, we had more fun with cheap Q-500s). I think Robert said it best, at this point in many of our lives we are more able to afford this stuff(only dreamed of a piped Tipo in 1979-80), but I have to think that many simply choose to not spend that amount of dollars. I like the KISS principle too. Keep It Simpler Simon (or Sally). I too apologize for stepping in the thread if I have. Like the others these are solely my opinions; but I have to wonder how someone outside looking in reads all of this. Long live the Classic Empire!
Hook57</span></span></div>

I think the problem with the retracts vs fixed comes down to the days one is not competing. It SPA is a sport fliers contest, and I am not talking quality of pilot. The planes flying in SPA are going to be weekend flyers 48-50 weekends a year. In reality it is a duel purpose plane; most dont want to build a plane that is going to sit in a corner until it is needed, so they want a plane that can cover all the bases. The guys who want retracts want them for the other days a year that they fly just as much as as contest day; they want to suck the gear up and make screaming passes at the home field on regular weekends, and the ones who dont want it to be simple day to day every day. The problem is you have to penalize one side or the other to make one of them happy or make 2 classes that co-exist.

But isn't that an easy remedy? Seriously, just leave the gear down right? I thought I read on the SPA site that that was okay to do. Personally I simply like the clean lines of the retracts, and you do have a point TFF. I used to fun fly's with my first Tiger Tail because it rolled like a b..... and snapped like a bigger one one, pure fun to fly even when not at a contest.
hook

Right. Leave them down when required. That is my plan- to configure to Vertigo II for the given event.

SPA- Muffler and gear down. (I plan on removable -by velcro or something- foam plugs to fill the wheel wells for less drag).

BPA- Bolt on the pipe and suck up the gear! OOO-RAH!!!

My belief is this: Most of us could have the plane of our dreams and still get smoked by a superior pilot flying a Tower Kaos. In fact there is a video of that very thing in a recent thread. There is an old saying that it is 90% pilot/10% machine. Of course with closely matched pilots the 10% kicks in, but 90% of the time it comes down to the person holding the box.

So to veer my rants back to the subject of the thread, I favor a "Run what ya brung" approach as possible. Most inclusive.

-Robert

Guys,

Thank you for the input.... All i will say there is something in the works... so stay tuned.....

Happy Holidays
Performance Model Aviation