2007 NATS
Moderator: hbartel
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cshepherd</i>
<br />That would be my choice as I currently have NO scale planes and will build what the majority of people want to fly.
2548 in '08!
IMO, 2548 should replace 2610 in the rulebook with a couple of tweaks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As long as the "tweaks" include dropping the "approved" plane list I agree. I have SIX Northrop A17As, 3 at 48" wingspan and three at 52" that could very easily lose 4". I'd like to see the minimum weight removed too.
The A17A is NOT an approved aircraft for 2548 even though it saw combat in the Netherlands during WWII.
I do NOT plan to rebuild the two black 2548 Spits that I flew at the NATS this year - they got knocked down AGAIN and will gain too much weight if I try to repair them (AGAIN!).
<br />That would be my choice as I currently have NO scale planes and will build what the majority of people want to fly.
2548 in '08!
IMO, 2548 should replace 2610 in the rulebook with a couple of tweaks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As long as the "tweaks" include dropping the "approved" plane list I agree. I have SIX Northrop A17As, 3 at 48" wingspan and three at 52" that could very easily lose 4". I'd like to see the minimum weight removed too.
The A17A is NOT an approved aircraft for 2548 even though it saw combat in the Netherlands during WWII.
I do NOT plan to rebuild the two black 2548 Spits that I flew at the NATS this year - they got knocked down AGAIN and will gain too much weight if I try to repair them (AGAIN!).
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alex Treneff</i>
Kirk, Chris,
Why do the classes have to be merged to just fly one class. Rick is the CD, so why can't he say "Based on expected participation, we are going to pick scale class xxxx out of the two choices this year." [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Alex, a lot of us are just plain tired of building for two classes that both appear to be on life support. With all due respect for the good intentions of the proponents of 2548 I personally believe it was the death knell for Scale combat. It diluted the efforts of the pilots out here who want to fly scale.
I personally will not chase two classes any more. I do not plan to rebuild my two 2548 Spits that got badly damaged at the NATS this year. If we fly 2610 in 2008 I will fly scale, if it is decided to fly 2548 as it currently stands, then I will not. If we fly one scale class and it is a blend of the two, then I will probably fly it. I guess we have to see what happens.
I have been challenged to write a proposal for a rule change to blend 2610 and 2548 but I do not know where to start. While most people agree that one scale class is good I have received a dozen different opinions on what it should be.
Where my personal position is "build everything to 48", rest of the plane to be in proportion otherwise 2610 rules apply" I get opinions on Props. weight, rpms, "approved aircraft", mufflers vs. mousse cans and everything in between.
There was a thread started in the members only section of this forum on this very topic a while back but it went nowhere.
Need some input guys, while recognizing we are not going to please all the people all the time. What does the <b>majority</b> want? And I think we need to limit input to the folks who fly Scale or plan to fly scale. With respect, I think we need the opinions of pilots who have some skin in the decision, if only to keep the variation to a manageable level.
Kirk, Chris,
Why do the classes have to be merged to just fly one class. Rick is the CD, so why can't he say "Based on expected participation, we are going to pick scale class xxxx out of the two choices this year." [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Alex, a lot of us are just plain tired of building for two classes that both appear to be on life support. With all due respect for the good intentions of the proponents of 2548 I personally believe it was the death knell for Scale combat. It diluted the efforts of the pilots out here who want to fly scale.
I personally will not chase two classes any more. I do not plan to rebuild my two 2548 Spits that got badly damaged at the NATS this year. If we fly 2610 in 2008 I will fly scale, if it is decided to fly 2548 as it currently stands, then I will not. If we fly one scale class and it is a blend of the two, then I will probably fly it. I guess we have to see what happens.
I have been challenged to write a proposal for a rule change to blend 2610 and 2548 but I do not know where to start. While most people agree that one scale class is good I have received a dozen different opinions on what it should be.
Where my personal position is "build everything to 48", rest of the plane to be in proportion otherwise 2610 rules apply" I get opinions on Props. weight, rpms, "approved aircraft", mufflers vs. mousse cans and everything in between.
There was a thread started in the members only section of this forum on this very topic a while back but it went nowhere.
Need some input guys, while recognizing we are not going to please all the people all the time. What does the <b>majority</b> want? And I think we need to limit input to the folks who fly Scale or plan to fly scale. With respect, I think we need the opinions of pilots who have some skin in the decision, if only to keep the variation to a manageable level.
- Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 941
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lightning</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alex Treneff</i>
Kirk, Chris,
Why do the classes have to be merged to just fly one class. Rick is the CD, so why can't he say "Based on expected participation, we are going to pick scale class xxxx out of the two choices this year." [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Alex, a lot of us are just plain tired of building for two classes that both appear to be on life support. With all due respect for the good intentions of the proponents of 2548 I personally believe it was the death knell for Scale combat. It diluted the efforts of the pilots out here who want to fly scale.
I personally will not chase two classes any more. I do not plan to rebuild my two 2548 Spits that got badly damaged at the NATS this year. If we fly 2610 in 2008 I will fly scale, if it is decided to fly 2548 as it currently stands, then I will not. If we fly one scale class and it is a blend of the two, then I will probably fly it. I guess we have to see what happens.
I have been challenged to write a proposal for a rule change to blend 2610 and 2548 but I do not know where to start. While most people agree that one scale class is good I have received a dozen different opinions on what it should be.
Where my personal position is "build everything to 48", rest of the plane to be in proportion otherwise 2610 rules apply" I get opinions on Props. weight, rpms, "approved aircraft", mufflers vs. mousse cans and everything in between.
There was a thread started in the members only section of this forum on this very topic a while back but it went nowhere.
Need some input guys, while recognizing we are not going to please all the people all the time. What does the <b>majority</b> want? And I think we need to limit input to the folks who fly Scale or plan to fly scale. With respect, I think we need the opinions of pilots who have some skin in the decision, if only to keep the variation to a manageable level.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Keith, I do not fly scale other than 3696, so I don't know much about 2610 or 2548, nor do I have an opinion on any rules regarding the two .25-size scale classes. I just think that if the scale guys have too much going on those 2 days, then drop one of the redundant scale classes before messing with the SSC schedule.
I think any future left for scale will be in small electric and .15 sized planes like 3696 anyway. There's too much carnage in the bigger classes for all the work that goes into a scale plane.
But as to 2610 and 2548, I have no opinions. Only on the scheduling.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Alex Treneff</i>
Kirk, Chris,
Why do the classes have to be merged to just fly one class. Rick is the CD, so why can't he say "Based on expected participation, we are going to pick scale class xxxx out of the two choices this year." [?]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">Alex, a lot of us are just plain tired of building for two classes that both appear to be on life support. With all due respect for the good intentions of the proponents of 2548 I personally believe it was the death knell for Scale combat. It diluted the efforts of the pilots out here who want to fly scale.
I personally will not chase two classes any more. I do not plan to rebuild my two 2548 Spits that got badly damaged at the NATS this year. If we fly 2610 in 2008 I will fly scale, if it is decided to fly 2548 as it currently stands, then I will not. If we fly one scale class and it is a blend of the two, then I will probably fly it. I guess we have to see what happens.
I have been challenged to write a proposal for a rule change to blend 2610 and 2548 but I do not know where to start. While most people agree that one scale class is good I have received a dozen different opinions on what it should be.
Where my personal position is "build everything to 48", rest of the plane to be in proportion otherwise 2610 rules apply" I get opinions on Props. weight, rpms, "approved aircraft", mufflers vs. mousse cans and everything in between.
There was a thread started in the members only section of this forum on this very topic a while back but it went nowhere.
Need some input guys, while recognizing we are not going to please all the people all the time. What does the <b>majority</b> want? And I think we need to limit input to the folks who fly Scale or plan to fly scale. With respect, I think we need the opinions of pilots who have some skin in the decision, if only to keep the variation to a manageable level.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Keith, I do not fly scale other than 3696, so I don't know much about 2610 or 2548, nor do I have an opinion on any rules regarding the two .25-size scale classes. I just think that if the scale guys have too much going on those 2 days, then drop one of the redundant scale classes before messing with the SSC schedule.
I think any future left for scale will be in small electric and .15 sized planes like 3696 anyway. There's too much carnage in the bigger classes for all the work that goes into a scale plane.
But as to 2610 and 2548, I have no opinions. Only on the scheduling.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by lightning</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cshepherd</i>
<br />That would be my choice as I currently have NO scale planes and will build what the majority of people want to fly.
2548 in '08!
IMO, 2548 should replace 2610 in the rulebook with a couple of tweaks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As long as the "tweaks" include dropping the "approved" plane list I agree. I have SIX Northrop A17As, 3 at 48" wingspan and three at 52" that could very easily lose 4". I'd like to see the minimum weight removed too.
The A17A is NOT an approved aircraft for 2548 even though it saw combat in the Netherlands during WWII.
I do NOT plan to rebuild the two black 2548 Spits that I flew at the NATS this year - they got knocked down AGAIN and will gain too much weight if I try to repair them (AGAIN!).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Keith, I'll write it up if you would like. One of my tweaks was to ditch the list. Let's chat on the back channel (email) to formulate our plan.
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by cshepherd</i>
<br />That would be my choice as I currently have NO scale planes and will build what the majority of people want to fly.
2548 in '08!
IMO, 2548 should replace 2610 in the rulebook with a couple of tweaks.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">As long as the "tweaks" include dropping the "approved" plane list I agree. I have SIX Northrop A17As, 3 at 48" wingspan and three at 52" that could very easily lose 4". I'd like to see the minimum weight removed too.
The A17A is NOT an approved aircraft for 2548 even though it saw combat in the Netherlands during WWII.
I do NOT plan to rebuild the two black 2548 Spits that I flew at the NATS this year - they got knocked down AGAIN and will gain too much weight if I try to repair them (AGAIN!).
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Keith, I'll write it up if you would like. One of my tweaks was to ditch the list. Let's chat on the back channel (email) to formulate our plan.
Well Said Scott
This is combat not scale. The build it and fly it in scale, attitude, is a good start to build the class back up. I feel we don't need a list, like scott said a time frame, and a 48" wing, and lets go cut some streamers. I pesonaly don't like scale, because the time it takes to make my planes look like the real one. With the correct markings and right documentation and all that. Don't get me wrong, I think they should look somewhat scale.
Were there any PINK scale planes?
This is combat not scale. The build it and fly it in scale, attitude, is a good start to build the class back up. I feel we don't need a list, like scott said a time frame, and a 48" wing, and lets go cut some streamers. I pesonaly don't like scale, because the time it takes to make my planes look like the real one. With the correct markings and right documentation and all that. Don't get me wrong, I think they should look somewhat scale.
Were there any PINK scale planes?
Nah, we're not talking rules, just talking about scale scheduleing in general.
And a note to anyone writing up rules proposals, it's best to write several small ones that are short and to the point rather than a huge proposal to turn one class in to another or some such. At least in general. It is up to you though.
And a note to anyone writing up rules proposals, it's best to write several small ones that are short and to the point rather than a huge proposal to turn one class in to another or some such. At least in general. It is up to you though.
I think we need to stay in Scale class some were in between the two classes.
I would leave in 2548 engine related and dimensions related requirements and color schemes should look cloth enough to the real ones but not so strict on the markings and exact shade of the real color. If talking about documentations, then what about to leave only the outline of the airplane from side and from the top, so the airplanes would not get distorted in proportions.
I would leave in 2548 engine related and dimensions related requirements and color schemes should look cloth enough to the real ones but not so strict on the markings and exact shade of the real color. If talking about documentations, then what about to leave only the outline of the airplane from side and from the top, so the airplanes would not get distorted in proportions.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by THend</i>
<br />I am certainly willing to be involved in any Scale proposals. Feel free to contact me.
[:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Terry, can you confirm your email address for me? Send me a tester to shepcombat@msn.com
<br />I am certainly willing to be involved in any Scale proposals. Feel free to contact me.
[:D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Terry, can you confirm your email address for me? Send me a tester to shepcombat@msn.com