Tony Pacini

Although their website isn't updated, they still have a few races a year. Some of their racers join us in Phoenix, and some of the Phoenix guys go down to Tucson to race.

I'm not advocating that they have any direct influence in our rule making. My reason for bringing them up is that we're talking about increasing the allowable 2-stroke displacements, and they've already done it. In fact, they've equalized the 2-strokes and 4-strokes, and that's a more aggressive change than most are discussing. They have a working model and could probably tell us the pros/cons of making such changes.

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

Terry,
Looks closer. Two problems from my point of view. One, you've gone to big on the two strokes and probably wouldn't fly with AMA and waivers. Second, you are using current motors to drive your displacement to wing area. This is the same problem with the old chart. What I've been shooting for is a chart that covers what we have today and what the future may give us. Let's think long term here and get a chart that will cover all combinations in between the min/max motors.

Also, if we went with 400 minimum squares I'm sure that a bronze or silver guy could go and by a new 40 two stroke for under $100 to use. Heck, the chart could start with a .40, but if we basically state that there was a minimum of 400 squares it could be worded to not restrict using smaller motors. And for those CD's that wanted to allow smaller planes they could make exceptions going down on wing area and motor, the chart would be more for out of towners so that they would know if their plane fit the rules.

Jimmy Skids

Tony Pacini

Jimmy,

You guys have been doing it longer and have more races over there than we do. We expect that you'll have a better idea as to what changes need to be made and why. We're not looking to influence your rules, we only want to consider what you guys are doing before making any changes over here. We certainly uynderstand that you need to do what works best for you locally. If it works for you, though, it may also work for us!

Todd Chandler

I vote for current min.

It really doesn't get any easier to get involved in SAMs bracket racing.

It's bracket racing. Any 40sized warbird with a stock engine can compete in bronze.

Our last race we had what I understand was an electric plane with a 63 on it. It was probably near the 400 inches and it looked about as small as I would like to see if not smaller. Personally I would like to see some uniformity. Not "minis" and GS running together. I like the .40 size as sort of a standard.

I don't want it to become a run what you brung. It's not to much to ask that you conform to some rules I personally feel if the rules are just blown open and we allow smaller planes, electric, less scale, less standards, that it will ultimately lead to less interest. And less participation.

Yes Joe blow will be happy. But I don't think it's in the best interest "scale warbird racing"

PLEASE!!!!! Don't blow the rules wide open. It's a mistake.

Like Tommy said how's that swra working out. You quote their rules as the second coming but they appear to be doa.

This was stArted and should remain as minor tweaks only.

$0.02 -TC

tsawyer148

My Feedback: (8)

Another quick observation,

When you read and hear about how the AMA racing, (422, 424 and 428), has lost some of it's appeal over the last few years is mostly due to the way the rules are being written and introduced. It appears that they have tried to micro manage the rules along the way and then something comes along that fits into the format yet causes way too much grief.

The beauty of the warbird rules lies in thier simplicity. They are short and to the point and are easy to understand and manage come race day, plus with the breakout times they allow a novice to feel like even though his/her airframe may not be the best one on the line the possibility is there to be competitive.

There is no doubt in my mind that the chart should be changed and that yes there should be a wing area chart in place, however I feel that we should be careful not to attach too much "pork" to these conversations. If an agreement can be reached that is good for all the organizations and is beneficial for ALL the classes, then so be it and let's get to racin'. If not, well then that would be dissapointing but keep in mind that the different organizations all appear to be moving forward and the formats in question still have good participation. As Terry and others have mentioned, one concern is getting new racers involved and keeping the seasoned racers active. I am worried that by taking too much time discussing things that happened over a decade ago and nit-picking some of the smaller details may curtail some of the newer guys from coming over. There are 4 of us in my area that have become hooked and are going to be active racers for the upcoming season and there are at least 4 or 5 more that have expressed a valid interest. These are some of the same guys that, when I was starting our own version of club racing in the area a few years back, were some of the biggest opponents of doing ANY racing simply because they were involved several years ago and were left with a bad taste in their mouths because the races were ruled to death. The warbird racing is appealing now because it is proven, successful, provides a form of racing to a wide variety of skill levels and airframes and by all accounts is extremely fun and entertaining.

Bert.

still4given

Hi Jimmy

Thanks for looking over the chart. Again, it is for discussion and I'm glad it is causing that. I'm not so sure that the AMA waiver has a problem with a Moki/Mark 2.10. It allows a 2.40 4 stroke. I know a couple of weeks ago they held a USRA GS race at Rabbit Lake here in the Victor Valley area. They have an entry level class with the 81" Hanger 9 Sundowners. The engine of choice seems to be the Moki 2.10, but Richard Verano flew in it with a YS 1.70 and set a new course record. If we have a slot for the YS 1.70, why not the Moki 210. It has been my experience that the larger the engines get, the less difference in power between the 2 and 4 strokes. You might want to use it in a big Sea Fury or Corsair and why not? Those round nose planes need a big prop.

As far as using current engine sizes, you are right. I did keep that in mind when building the chart. Made more sense to me than the chart that Mark listed which had a lot of sizes that don't even exist. We could just as easily call them a range as in (not larger than). Then if an engine is larger than the size listed, it has to go up to the next size. We could add as many lines as we think necessary. If you think we need to go every .05 CID for each we can do that. The chart just gets a little longer. The chart is really just a guideline anyway. To really equalize the chart you would have to list specific manufactures because a Saito 1.80 is not as strong as a YS 1.70 but stronger than a Magnum 1.80. We have to stop somewhere.

The wing area minimum is really not important to me. The Model Tech Me-109 I listed above was flown in the Kingman race. It was fine. If folks have a problem with it, let's forget I suggested it. Those size planes probably wouldn't be used that much anyway. I had been asked to include them so I did. No big deal.

Thanks again, Terry

summin

Gents,

I took the table I put together earlier and adjusted the 2c displacements a little up or down to be on an even .00 or .05.


<colgroup><col width="64" span="5" style="WIDTH: 48pt"></col></colgroup>

Proposed 1.5x incr to 2c disp (adjusted)
2c disp	4c disp	Min sq. in.
0.60	0.80	400
0.70	0.90	438
0.75	1.00	475
0.80	1.10	513
0.85	1.15	532
0.90	1.20	550
1.00	1.30	567
1.10	1.40	585
1.15	1.50	602
1.20	1.60	620
1.40	1.80	650
1.60	2.16	700
1.80	2.40	735

Servo481

Gents,

I am enjoying all the inputs in this discussion, and I really like YS engines. Perhaps A good compromise to the problem and to help more engine types to be completive this is another solution. Add an engine group to the matrix. The new engine group could be supercharged 4C and 2C with tuned pipes.


Ray

Tommy_Gun

Hi Ray!

JPGale

The problem with the Moki/Mark 2.10 is that (and I can only say for 2 stroke) per AMA rules anything over 80 inch wing span or 1.6 displacement is giant scale and must be raced on a 1600 ft course.

James

still4given

I only mentioned the Sundowner as an example of the power difference between the Moki and the YS 1.70DZ. The point I was trying to make is that as the engines get larger, the difference in power between the two gets smaller. I could easily see someone using the 2.10 in a .90 size warbird. Probably not in Gold, but maybe Silver of Bronze.It just opens up some more possibilities. It is beginning to look more and more like we will drop the wing area rule in RCPRO and just rely on the breakout times to control the speed. This will allow the use of electric power as well. Very exciting! We will still be keeping an eye on what the SAMS guys come up with, as I know that a few of us are still looking forward to racing there.

Blessings, Terry

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

James,
Can you direct me to those rules. I would like to know what the max for our deal would be.
Thanks,
Jimmy Skids

eddyc

My Feedback: (11)

Any status on the rules updates? I want to start getting some planes together.

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

No changes as of yet, I have worked on some small changes to my proposed chart which once I get a scanned copy I will post, basically upped the 2 stoke to 160 and spread out the displacements. If you are planning to attend a SAM's race I would go with the current rules but I'm trying to work on changes that would open up the classes some. Remember I'm not a CD so all I can do is get the ball rolling in the right direction.

Jimmy Skids

MONGO44

Jimmy,


I know the wing displacement factors need to be adjusted, but realistically, I dont think it really makes a difference. The four strokes are always going to have an advantage and with all the new engines hitting the markets, next year who is to say the chart isnt going to be outdated. I have been reading on the RCPro site that they are trying to do the same thing, but they are leaning towards just making a even displacement size straight across the board.

My .02cents is I really dont understand why there even has to be a wing area vs. displacement. Make a minimum and a maximum and that is it. If a Y.S. 120 P-51 wants to race against a O.S. 120 2-C P-51, lets have fun. The slower plane will loose, but if they break out , the faster plane looses. It is all about the breakout times, not the size of the plane and engine.Safety is the #1 concernbut that is why minimums and maximums are given. I know many pilots who have no experience with 4-strokes would love to race in Sacramento if they could show up with their 2-strokers. There are several pilots who have .90's to 1.20's in World Models Mustangs that would do quite well , but they wont beat a Y.S. 120 on 65%. So realistically there is no threat.

At our race on Nov. 7th, we had a 120 2-strokes against 120 4-strokes and the 2-stroke held its own, but the power and pitch carried by the 4-strokes was greater.

Jimmy Skids

My Feedback: (2)

Kevin,

I agree with almost everything said. Personally I think there should be some sort of chart, and I would really like to see some of the bay area guys involved up north. I also would like to know that what we run up here would work with what you all are doing in your races.

I'm going to email you a copy of the newest version. I should also have a copy posted here today if my round nose loving scanner assitant has a free moment at work to do a scan. I know that SAM's will always have a chart, what I'm trying to do is get that chart to the point that others can come fly if they so choose without having to make major modifications. I believe this is the best compromise between what everyone has been saying. I spoke with a few CD's and they are at least open to hearing about changes, our meeting is next month so I'd like to have something that can be stomached by everyone interested by then.

On a seperate note, there has been some talk about another change to the rules........ NO LIPOS in race planes.

Jim

MONGO44

The Battery thing has always been a big thing for me as well.

I have been approached several times in relationship to the T-34 series and Warbird series on allowing electric aircraft to race. Having friends on the F5B teams, I have seen some of the batteries they use and the heat that is generated from those packs. At first I was ok with allowing them but then come to realize in our sport with the mortality rate, all it takes is one electric plane to midair or crash in the high grass field and their goes a days racing. On top of that, AMAwould require you to have water tanks and fire retardents on hand which is more expense to put out fires. Most jets events have to go through this. In fact, every pilot is suppose to have this equipment on hand at their side on the fliteline but I know on several occasions that policy gets very relaxed.

As for flight pack batteries, Lipos are very unhappy in crashes , but NIMH and Nicads if shorted out can cause fires also, but with a lot lower percentage compared to Lipos.

delateurj

With regards to battery.

If fire hazard is a concern then be sure the rules refers to LiPos and not LiFe (e.g. A123's) which do not have the fire hazards similar to LiPo.

I run 1100 A123's in my pylon ships as I think it is even safer than nicads and nimh due to ability of them to deliver voltage about spektrum reboot levels even in high current demand situations (e.g. retract stuck) and high capacity and charge retention means less likelihood of dead pack causing crash which somebody had on their test flight at the last Morgan Hill t-34. These are very similar in weight ( a little more than) than the 700 mah nicad packs.

If you eliminated the use of a123's I think you would actually be decreasing safety.

For what its worth,
Joe.

Tommy_Gun

Well,
I know of at least one racing accident in Sac that involved a crashed racer running an A123 pack that resulted in a very nice grass fire.
Any power source that gets shorted out has this potential.

pjakew

My Feedback: (4)

Did that one involve a spiffy looking P-47?

Iron Dog

I hope not to offend anyone, with my comments, but I think simplified, but clear displacement vs. wing area charts are definitely still needed:

There are still too many structural failures even with the current guidelines. Letting a pilot slap any size motor desired into an airframe will merely exacerbate these occurrences. (I’m channeling Tim “The Tool Man” Taylor grunting “MORE POWER! Ho! Ho!” right now – and what race pilot doesn’t like more power?!) Add to that the danger of these craft with now even trickier takeoff, landing, or other handling qualities, and at times pilots that are often already pushing the limits a little beyond what they appear comfortable with in their current level of pilot proficiency – and safety becomes a serious concern, in my opinion.

Planes that so easily breakout cause problems well beyond their pilot(s) getting a zero for flying too fast. Years ago I’d watch racers having to really hone their skills to turn the plane “right on the pylons” in order to get to that magical number just on the edge of breakout, while still avoiding excessive cuts. Now anyone can slap an even more oversized engine on their airframe and fly faster so they can travel well beyond the pylons to ensure they don’t cut. The problem that arises as a result, is twofold:

1) Pilots from the faster planes flying a longer course pass the slower plane in the 1st straightaway, but fall behind (or essentially get passed) as the slower plane flying the tighter course turns earlier, then have to re-pass on the 2nd straightaway to re-establish their lead once again after going long, only to lose the lead again in the 2nd turn of the lap. Were this pattern to continue on every turn and straightaway for all 10 laps, then there could potentially be up to as many as 40 passes just between these two airplanes during one race. Each additional time these planes actually do end up crossing paths, the risk of a mid-air increases. (How many times have you heard a pilot complain about getting “T-boned” lately?!) Add extra planes, differing speeds and pilot skill levels . . . and spectator safety and the chances for more pilots returning home with their airplanes are adversely affected. I didn’t attend, but I heard there was a very close call with a plane damaged and people in the pit area “hitting the deck” to avoid getting hit as it passed just above them.

2) The “sandbagger” who flies the more powerful plane will often sit just behind the pilot that has the reputation for being extremely consistent, then just barely pass him in the last moments of the final lap to often snatch the win. This doesn’t place enough emphasis on rewarding proper skill development.


Revise the chart to provide more competitive match-ups between 2 and 4 strokes, but don’t throw out that chart – it serves an important purpose. Furthermore, I don’t know that I would consider the comparison between the power of a YS 4-stroke running 65% nitro vs. a similar displacement 2-stroke likely running 20% nitro as an (unfair) advantage. Anyone spending that much more on an engine, that much more on fuel costs, and subjecting their engine (and airframe) to substantially reduced lifespan due to pushing it so much harder has a right to expect better performance. For me, I don’t want to invest that much in a YS only to have it burn up sooner. That’s why I don’t attempt to race in Gold. I’ve burnt out bearings in two smaller YS engines in 4 years running merely 45% nitro.

Iron Dog

My apologies for the incomplete thought, but I was referring to the 2 Minute Tango at SAMs

MFLOOD3800

My Feedback: (51)

Iron Dog has really summarized the overall idea here. Terry, step in please.
The idea was to make the classes more competitive with todays technology as far as engines and open it up to a wider variety of 2xers.
It was also to increase entries in ALL classes, especially the bronze and silver, as well as gold.

Terry spent some time on the charts for a reason. They do keep some sense of the safety issues in mind.(we as racers NEED boundaries or we will ruin this by giving the richest their spoils ). Plus what I liked best about Iron dogs comments is :" it keeps us racing and not sandbagging, or running long and not fine tuning your skills on the course". Having charts to creat a parameter of equality makes it more like racing a course than just DRAG RACING. Remember this is Pylon racing, not Drag Racing down a straight. The best thing about pylon racing is the turns, or at least it used to be.

There is no doubt the elimination of a chart all together reduces the rules concerns, but it certainly seems to rob from the intent of what pylon racing truely is suppose to be.

Tommy_Gun

Wow Iron Dog,
You stated that almost like a well edumucated type person would.

It hurts my brayne to think that much.

JPGale

Iron Dog,

I think that you are making some really great points here. This the main reason why we have stock classes. In our warbird series, we have a almost stock class so the pilots can have the fun of experimenting with the planes and engines to find a fast combo, we have a pure stock class where the only way to win is to hit the turns perfectly, then we open up the rules to 120 warbird and unlimited which are a lot less restricted, we also put pilot skill limits on these classes.

I think that the bracket racing actually does represent some very impressive skills, for me the skill of keeping a gold plane in the air while 20 ft of the ground is a big part of the skill, then figuring out the course you need to fly to hit the breakout perfectly, then not getting taking in by other pilots who many be going faster than you.

I think your safety concern is a good one and something everyone should be responsible for considering. I have been to 2 SAM races and I have found these races to have less incidents than the racing I run. In the November 7th race I was in a stock race where all 4 planes were swapping position every turn, we had 1 mid air in that heat. We seem to have far more mid airs because we are sharing the same space on the turns.

At the moment I am going to put together a plane to fulfill the SAM rules as is, but I would like to be able to bring my stock class mustang up as a back up. I still think some changes are needed to allow 2c to be competitive with the 4c guys.

As to the 2 minute tango incident, the pilot did his best and managed to avoid the pits.

Jimmy,

Let us all know what happens with the CD's, I am also interested to know what happens to the 115 wing area as well. Currently I am building to 550 sq in.

James