Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

I've tried to say away - I've tried to keep my mouth close - I've tried to keep my opinion to myself BUTIJUSTCAN"T TAKETHISANYMORE. Tipo, Summit, LA-1, Conquest, EU-1A, Altanta, Beetle, Desception, Compensator, Hipo, Arrow, Curare, Jekyll and others of those great pattern days, I've seen with wheel pans. For the life of me I can't understand why. Maybe these guys don't know what is was like to fly these truely design pattern planes. Now before I continue, like me make this very clear, I'm in no way downgrading any builder on how he/she builds their plane, I have the upmost respect for all in this hobby. Your plane is a representation of you, in all its glory - so guys, just hear me out. I've flown and build most of the planes I mentioned. There were nights when I would stay up until 2 or 3 in the morning finishing a wing or fuse and go to work red eye. I remember one time I go so caught up in building an MK Aurora that I didn't go to works for two days - I was so involve. As I continued from the mid 70's to the mid to late 90's, flying these rocket ships were simply amazing. Bare with me for a moment and let me refresh your memory. You arrive at the field about 6:30 or 7:00 AM, noboby around, its cold and you cansmell the air, you can fell the density in the air, just after a rainy day. You fuel up, check your battery,do a range check -you're good to go.(in my case,it was an MK Arrow with a Rossi RE). You turn the prop over several times, attach the glow driver, grab the stater, hit the TruTurn spinner and WOW - this monster fires right up. Just the sound of this motor with pipe attached, if anyone can remember, their is a distinct sound when a Rossi comes on the pipe, you can't mistake it, its unique in its on fashion. You taxi out to runway, strattle the fuse between your legs, run up the motor - you good to go. You position the plane and yourself for takeoff, you hit the throttle and off shes goes. The moment you break ground, wheels come up and she becomes a bullet in the sky. You do a flyby and into a spli-S. When you level her out, thats whenNOT having wheels pans makes all the difference in presentation. These plane have a presents in the air like no other. Case in point, take the Atlanta, probably one of the most beautiful planes that came out of the late 80's - the fuse itself shape with a teardrop with low profile canopy. I built several of these with YS motors and they scream. These planes had a purpose, to fly like a bat out of hell - and they did. I know times have change, pattern flying has changed, everything is slow and constant - turnaround pattern flying. Back in the day, flying pattern, there was no turnaround. You make you pass, do your manuver and end with a Split-S and set up for the next. Today its different, fat fuses, thin airfoil, hugh props and electric motors OH and don't foregt the wheel pans. Now, Isaid all of this to make a point, wheels pans on any of these planes does nothing but downgrade their original design, it puts them in a class where they don't belong. Again, no disrespect to anyone and anyone has the right build as they see fit. I just can't stand to see wheels pans on an Atlanta or Arrow or Tpo - and I seen them on every one of these planes. I hope that those of us who truely remember those days will holdup to their true design and fly them for what they are - bullets in the sky.
NOWICANMOVEON - just had to get this out

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Auggie,

while I can understand where you're coming from, I'm not sure what wheel pans are...? Are you typing on a phone and every time you type pants, it spells pans!? If you are, I sympathize. Ever since I got a "smart" phone that lets me write, the dang thing keeps wanting to change every word I type! :eek:

In any case, agreed, gear up on classics. Wheel pants can be used as crash test dummies... :D

David

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

IMO, if it was a trike with retracts, it'd better stay a trike it'd better stay a trike with retracts.

Once you go to a taildragger, (calypso, joker etc) then I really don't care about the retracts so much. They look kind of pretty with pants.

Incidentally, in the 80's there was a guy here in australia that modified his Arrow to make it more competitive in turnaround, by lightening it (a lot), removing the trike retracts, and going for a mono wheel and tip skids, like a U2 spyplane.

The monowheel however was wearing a pant!

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Pans or pants?

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

sorry for spelling error- come on guys, you know what Imean. It doesn't make any difference who or what made changes to these or any particularpattern aircraft of that era - well pants are definetly a sin to their design.

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Just like Rendegade says - if it's a trike gear - then it stays a trike gear!!

Gene

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

.
So. .. . I guess you've been appointed the CPA Policeman?
.

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

How often do we actually see a classic pattern plane ('72-'87) with well pans, whoops, wheel pants?

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

I have to admit, not often (at least I don't).

But I did just come across one... [:o] not withstanding the nice build job done. Aviomodelli just has the wrong end of the stick in my view... :eek:

David

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Keith, no need to get flustered. I admire your passion for the CPA. I simply like the trike gears on these planes and you know what, that's OK. Keep up your drive as everyone can see how this area of RCU and pattern enthusiasts has become increasingly more popular.

Gene

Ps. I also don't like "colorized" versions of black and white movies. ;)

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Unless perhaps they are Georges Méliès movies...! [8D]

Chaplin is just superb.

David

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

This is a Mach 1.
Chris...

http://i46.servimg.com/u/f46/16/86/26/46/scan0010.jpg

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

To all those who posted,, bavo. To "KLHOARD", no I didn't appoint myself as CPA and for that ridiculous comment you made ,well lets say, your itelligence is well noted. To all those who responded and will respond, what I hope to have passed on was simply a desire for preservation - not a degradation as to how one builds their aircraft - Stay true to your build

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Bro, no offense but, you've got to get on top of your spell checker!! I personally didn't what the he$% you were talking about. Heck, there may be plenty of people who agree with you but, bust a move on that proofing.

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Wheel pants ! http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/js/f.../sad_smile.gif But if it floats your boat, go for it. It's a shame that RC modelling is going to the styrofoam air plane. No pride today in what some people fly.
Frank

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

That's true. My buddy Mark built the Mach 1 from a Midwest kit in the 80's and flew it as a trike stocker for some time. Then he remodded it into this configuration. But he did actually build it and paint it so that's something!

Chris...

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

I don't think he realized quite a few of us had no idea what he was talking about. Spell checker is almost universal, no reason to have so many misspellings. Not that a misspelled word is a big deal, we just weren't sure because of it.

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

Hey Auggie, you can go back and edit your post correcting pans. You'll then be able to reply, "I don't know what you're talking about.".;)

Funny how that Mach 1 looks just like the unpopular alternative scheme of an Ugly Stik, one of the greatest planes of all time. 99% of them were red with black crosses. Hey, I have an idea, how about building an Ugly Stik with retracts? It makes just about as much sense to me as putting conventional gear with wheel pans on a Dirty Birdy or Tiporare.

If you take a classic car and turn it into a low rider and pimp my ride is it still a classic? I'm a purist and a traditionalist. I prefer to follow the design. Not many people then interested in competition would have considered fixed, conventional gear or converting to a tail dragger on planes designed for tricycle gear and retracts.

However, to each his (or her) own. If an electric foamy can fly a classic pattern circuit, God Speed John Glenn.

Bill

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

I may be totally wrong, and I don't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, but I think "Classic Pattern" should be regulated to the style of pattern that was flown back in the "Classic" pattern days. It was the style of the flying that dictated the type and design of the plane. Back in the 70's and 80's there were many types and designs of planes that were flown in pattern, some tail draggers but most were trike. In Novice pattern, I saw some ugly stiks flying.

The retracts weren't allowed in Novice, neither was a pipe. Once the flyer graduated to Sportsman, he could fly anything he wanted. The pattern plane evolved, over time, to what we now like to refer to as THE "Classic Pattern".

So I think if we follow the train of though that we want to fly the Classic Pattern era, we should forget about what we fly, but fly what best suits the Classic Pattern as contained in the AMA rules of the Class Pattern era, the 1970's. If a person wants to design a plane today that will fly the maneuvers of the 1970's and 1980's, so be it. Wheel pants or tricycle or whatever floats your boat, as long as it's not a styrofoam ARF with an electric motor attached to the front.

Like I said, I may be totally wrong......

Frank

RE: Why Wheel pans on Classic Vintage Pattern Planes
 

I certainly agree with the original poster. Retracts only on classic pattern planes.

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but I love Frank's (Countilaw) comment above. If you really want to do pattern flying the way it was done back then, you establish the rulebook and then let competitors develop whatever planes they want to be competitive within that rulebook and that set of maneuvers. Do you guys think no one ever built a thin wing Kaos and stretched the fuselage to accommodate a heavy engine so they could go 120? Or did no one ever put an Intruder wing on a Deception just to see if it would help? Chances are, someone somewhere did anything you can possibly imagine being done to try and gain a competitive advantage, and through the trails of competition the RC community figured out what worked and what didn't. The purist mentality has no place in a sport based on innovation.

Nostalgia pretty much locks development, but un-development of the designs is development gone wrong. Will not say what a Kaos with a 4 stroke is. The rules were really designed to do keep the old hands away. If in the beginning Don Lowe or Dave Brown started coming to the contests, they would have run the tables. No tuned pipes and retracts were used for that. The rules are a "it's my ball", and although planes are nostalgia, what you do in the rule package is not. If you had proof you flew a Kaos wing on a Curare fuselage, it should be allowed but that is not what it is about. It is about Daddy Rabbits with 4 strokes.

When Tower had their second run of their Kaos 60, with a price of $159 less a $25.00 coupon and with FREE shipping, I decided to get one. I powered it with a O.S. Max 60 Gold Head and will guide it with my $200.00 Taranis D9X Plus.

I have always hated buying ARFs, but at that price I couldn't buy the kit and build one. I really rather get a kit from Lazor Works out of Wichita Falls, Texas. But with a one more contest this season, I needed a back up plane fast.

I plan on getting a Deception from LazorWorks soon. http://lazer-works.com/index.html

But here are a few pics of the Tower Kaos:

Frank

http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2185327http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2185328http://www.rcuniverse.com/forum/atta...mentid=2185329

My point TFF is that development should still be allowed. Pilots should be given a set of parameters and limits, then set free to design and build whatever they think will work. Moving on from the Nats winning designs that we all know about, look at all the ideas that were tried and contributed to the knowledge we have now. There were planes with super thin wings, planes with flaps, all kinds of experimental airfoils, tweaks to engines and exhausts, and so on. A big part of what made that era of pattern flying so interesting was the fact that anything could happen, and the next big idea was always just around the corner.

So today, we have new building materials and techniques to make planes lighter and stronger. We have better engines and radios, lighter batteries, and more precise servos. So if classic pattern pilots want to fly as it was done back then, why not act as if all of those things were available back then and see what could have been done with them? I see Mickey Walker's point of wanting to keep costs down by not allowing some of the more expensive performance adders, but when the rulebook is so tight that no one can get creative and innovate it stifles interest. If aircraft design and power system choices could be opened up a bit, at least at the higher classes, it would give pilots a reason to stay interested for longer.

I would just like the SPA open up the list to include more 70's and 80's era planes. Especially the Tipo.


Frank