SSC Then and Now

Cajun · Post by **Cajun** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 10:14 am

I see a mentality in much of this thread that says "if we're not running a demolition derby, it's not combat".

If that is the mentality and thinking of the RCCA and it's members, the org is destined for failure.

We all know there is some level of carnage and destruction associated with combat, whatever the class. But if we make no effort to alleviate or contain this destruction and instead just feed on it our numbers will never reach the level to sustain the org.

SSC is our top drawing class because we made efforts to slow it down and contain some of the destruction. That effort will need to continue for as long as the class exists if we want it to remain a SOMEWHAT Slow and Survivable CLASS.

If the effort to keep the class Slow and Survivable is not made it will continue to evolve into just another open A class and loose it's original intent. A year from now we can look back and see if we made the right decisions. If we didn't it will be too late[B)] We can't just continue to create new classes to try and please everyone. I still contend RCCA only needs to recognize three classes for NPS and sanctions. But, that involves setting the three classes up so they fit the vast majority of the members. We can't please everyone but we do have to try pleasing the majority while offering something to the new guys, the OGC, and the guys who only fly locally and sparingly. If you want to just write these guys off,,,,,,no problem, but the results are predictable. They will just fly local spec classes and totally shun the RCCA. If that's what we want,,,,,let's just say so and we can all go merrily about our business[^]and we don't need this thread.

I've never seen a problem with the KISS principle. Keep Open B for the top class for those who want to fly speed. Keep SSC the slow and survivable (with checks in place to keep it that way) for those who feel, for whatever reason, they won't fly Open B. Keep 2548 for the scale class.

Why do we want to make this difficult[?][?][?]

Lee Liddle · Post by **Lee Liddle** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:11 am

I just don`t think we can keep it quite that simple Bill. I like B, but wouldn`t want it to be the only class with enough speed and manuverability to keep it interesting. I`m all for "adjusting" SSC to keep it somewhat slow and survivable, but I see only minor tweaks as being needed to do this. These would be 44oz and maybe 64" and 600 squares. That`s about it, and quite a few guys don`t even want that.
I think the we should outline a spec class, based on SSC engine/prop rules as a way to get beginners involved at a level they can have some success at.

To All,
As the Southcentral District Rep, I will push for and vote for changes that meet what the majotity of members from my district want. Right now the ONLY pilot who has e-mailed me directly to let me know what he wants, doesn`t want any change at all.
If you are in my district, and are an active pilot, let me know what you want so that I can represent you properly

I hear some say, they want to ease the destruction. I hear others say that they want to level the field. Both are important, but what`s more important to you, Mr Average RCCA Member.

E-Mail me, let me hear from you directly, I`ll keep track of it and keep you guys informed, so that you don`t get blindided by changes you don`t want or vice versa.

Cajun · Post by **Cajun** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:22 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These would be 44oz and maybe 64" and 600 squares. That`s about it, and quite a few guys don`t even want that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Lee, I don't even see that as being a change. It figures out to 10.55 oz wing loading. That's what's being flown at the present by most guys.

That's nothing more than "change" for the sake of "change". Sounds like something our state legislature would come up with[:(]

Bo_Connolly · Post by **Bo_Connolly** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 4:43 pm

The basis for our troubles with the SSC Class
was that it really wasn't named correctly in the first place...

This is causing people to get the wrong impressions [;)]

See, One word was off and We were completely missing one word !!!

SKSC "Slower Kinda Survivable Combat" 

See, It is Slower that Open B [ Alot of the Original Intent ]
and It is Kinda Survivable [ Due to the Slower Speeds ].

And, It is of course...
Still Combat [:)]

Ed Kettler · Post by **Ed Kettler** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:38 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Cajun
 <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">These would be 44oz and maybe 64" and 600 squares. That`s about it, and quite a few guys don`t even want that.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Lee, I don't even see that as being a change. It figures out to 10.55 oz wing loading. That's what's being flown at the present by most guys.

That's nothing more than "change" for the sake of "change". Sounds like something our state legislature would come up with[:(]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Bill,

I appreciate your input and ideas related to combat. Would it be possible for you to define your change proposal so that it can be built and flown? For example:
1. Prop = ??
2. Max RPM = ??
3. Wing area = ??
4. Wing span = ??
5. Min weight = ??
6. Wing planform = ??

Bo may be on to something: false advertising[:I] SSC was what we were trying to achieve, and we have used SSC as the branding for the class. We could rename it to "Limited A", but it would not change the current flight characteristics that Cajun brings up, leading to furballing and midairs.

I'd like to see the proponents of change build and fly their ideas within the next two months so we have some flight test data by mid-year. We need a little Missouri "Show Me" ...[:D] There is nothing like a little "peer review" to help flesh out ideas and see what works and what doesn't.

Have a great weekend guys!

Ed

jfromm · Post by **jfromm** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:42 pm

I meant team combat not club combat. We had two different clubs flying against each other. Rules were something like this:
Â· 25 points for launch on time
Â· 25 points for a cut against the other team
Â· 25 points for fly the full round. You loose this if you midair.
Â· If you lost more than 50% of your streamer, you were considered damage and had to land.
Â· Flew red against blue.
Â· The team with the most points wins

Launching on time was the most important contributor for the winning team. You had to be careful with who and how you engaged, so you would not cut your own team member.

Lee Liddle · Post by **Lee Liddle** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 6:56 pm

Bill, 44oz is a change. 44oz planes fly significantly slower and significantly less manuverable than 40oz planes. I guess it`s just been too long since you`ve seen Dane`s 40oz Cobras ripping up the sky and flying circles around other planes like they were sitting still.In my hundreds of official SSC heats and countless flights, I`ve flown both 40`s and 44`s and there`s a BIG difference.

Most current SSCs meet the span and area limits that I suggest, that`s the idea, but it would keep someone with endless green or endless time from flying George Cleavland`s 40oz 72" white foam Falcons. Everyone makes fun of them, because they aren`t tuff, but one-on one they could outfly anything that I`ve seen. You don`t want serious pilots going there, believe me.

If you want to slow things down more than that, I think you`ll have to choose or create another class. I just don`t think it`s going to happen.

I`ve put out the call to SC District members to tell me what they would like to see. I`m your rep. Let me know your numbers. OH, yeah, show me some real flight tests. Otherwise no`one`s gonna give a flip about your numbers.

jfromm · Post by **jfromm** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 8:34 pm

Cajun,

Throwing the baby out with the bath water would be bad. The rules we have are pretty good and they got here for reasons. I feel we just have to reduce the destruction.
The specification on the airplane is not going to reduce destruction. That should be obvious with the progression of all the classes to date. Destruction never went down and as pilots got better on average it went up. All we need is a major incentive to not get into midairs and they would go down. Then all the classesâ€™ start making sense. Open-B for fast combat, SSC for slower combat, Fixed 2810 for scale.

I truly believe that there are 2 types that watch combat. Those that think midairs are cool and would never consider doing it and those that think midairs air stupid and would never consider doing it. The rest fly it! I also feel that once people got used to not midairing too much, their enjoyment would also go up and the sport would be more competitive.

Cajun · Post by **Cajun** » Fri Apr 01, 2005 11:58 pm

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I feel we just have to reduce the destruction.
The specification on the airplane is not going to reduce destruction.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Jay, we're both basically on the same page. We both feel a need to reduce the destruction of airplanes. We both agree that minor changes in the plane specifications is not going to accomplish this reduction.
<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I also feel that once people got used to not midairing too much, their enjoyment would also go up and the sport would be more competitive<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Amen, that's what this thread is all about and for all of your information I have flown SSC since it's inception, placed 35th in NPS in 2003, held one of the very first SSC demos in Tyler Texas, and have held and been the CD for SSC contests in Alazan for two years and held Open B and Open C contests there prior to that. I organized and wrote the rules for the first round robin combat series in Texas. I didn't just fall off a turnip truck[:o)] And I am 69 years old and know "Smoke and Mirrors" and "Snow Jobs" when I see it. Having said all that, be advised I don't consider myself an expert on anything. I just try to observe and comprehend and understand what I observe.

The turning ability of the designs have progressed to the point they don't even compare with the planes we flew two years ago. Detuning a design will never work. You can't retard progress. The turning ability coupled with the increase in speed with the cleaner airframes is, IN MY OPINION, what's responsible for the carnage. There's only two ways to reverse this, some form of disincentive for midairs, or reducing the speed. Disincentives for midairs would involve rules changes in scoring. Speed reduction could only be accomplished with a prop change, as artificially slowing down an engine just creats a lot of suspicion[:(!]. I don't have access to different props yet, so I can't verify which ones might accomplish what we are looking for. Maybe there's not one. But a prop that would slow the airspeed down by 5 to 10 MPH while giving the plane increased thrust may possibly be an advantage. This option doesn't appear to have much support as most of the top dawgs like to fly fast. I suspect that is the crux of this problem. 
Soooo, we're left with some form of rule change to form a disincentive for midairs, which I can support, but also don't see being accepted or the Smoke and Mirrors of a minor adjustment in wing span.[:(]

The more things change, the more they stay the same. I guess Dr. Evil was right. Get the rules right the first time. You won't get a second chance.

Where's Jimbo? Limited B is looking better all the time[:0][|)][:)]

Cajun · Post by **Cajun** » Sat Apr 02, 2005 10:37 am

I just counted and there are 20 guys who have posted in the 8 pages of this thread and several of them don't fly NPS.

That leaves about 115 guys who have not been heard. It looks like we are just talking to each other and the four walls[xx(]

I'm out of here. GONE FLYING[^]. I've got a brand new field to open[:D]

Hat Trick · Post by **Hat Trick** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:07 am

I agree with Lee that the changes needed would be pretty minor and exactly as he stated.

Increase the weight minimum and performance will be down a bit and furballing is a lot more difficult. That added weight can go into more armor so the planes become more survivable. Limit the max wing area and all planes and design will perform pretty evenly.

There is no testing required to prove this out as this is exactly what we were flying last year. Many of you haven't seen the next generation of SSC planes that are coming out this year and will have to take our word for it that performance has significantly improved. The weight reductions and skinny airfoils have made a quantum leap in performance from last years planes. The weight reductions have limited armor and have to decrease Survivability

If we are to retain the goals of Slow Survivable combat we will need to act in the rules adjustment period after the nats. Go to a contest where the latest designs are being flown. If you haven't seen it you probably won't believe it. No body ever believes what the leaders are saying until they see it themselves. I know I wouldn't have if I didn't see it with my own eyes.

I'm in favor of some kind of midair penalty. I don't think it needs to be real severe but just enough to make you think twice before taking that shot that you know has a 50% or better chance of resulting in a midair. I'm thinking maybe -50 points?

Not related to this thread but Open B has the same problem. Performance has had a lot more time to evolve and has been increasing at a steady rate. I thought we had reached a time where performance would level off and no further improvements would be possible. Paris proved me to be very wrong. My estimate is that there were planes there with a 40% increase in speed and 30% improvement in turning ability. This is accomplished with very light weight and racing engines. Open B if continued on this trend will soon be a event where very few can be competative due to equipment and piloting ability limitations. Ok for a premier event at the Nats or something but you won't see any average Joes coming to contests. I'm really exieted about Limited B and am looking forward to the first real event at Hamilton!

Combat guys are just to inovative and if the event is to survive and have a lot of participation it will require strict limitations and rapid adjustments when somebody figures out how to get around the limitations. You can bet that somebody will! The future of the event depends on a rapid reaction to keep the event on track. We've learned a lot and have a much better idea of what is needed but experience tells me we still don't know it all!

Post by **mad** » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:48 am

Cajun,
I havent posted on this thread but have been watching it carefully.
from what I have read I will give you my opinions.
1. No penalty for midair-- I prefer a reward that makes a midair a disatvantage. say a multiplyer of two for complete round on streamer points. A full rnd with no cuts and a full streamer would go from160 pts to 280 pts. makes it worth defending your streamer.
2.I think raising the min wt. 4 oz would help to level the field a bit.

MLaBoyteaux · Post by **MLaBoyteaux** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:52 pm

Here's the evidence. Cajun caused the midair because he wouldn't get out of Bob's way!

http://www.laboyteaux.com/videos/midair.wmv

thojo · Post by **thojo** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:17 pm

So who flew again first??????

Hat Trick · Post by **Hat Trick** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:27 pm

The problem with rewarding the guy who keeps his streamer and avoids a midair is that the guy with the streamer is usually not the one causing the midair. It's the attacker who is more likely to cause the midair. After you lose your streamer you no longer have any incentive to avoid a midair so you take the 50-50 shot at the guy who has 5 feet on his wing.

Any midair penalty has to make you think twice before taking that shot that has a higher potential to lead to a midair.