Limited-B Rules ( as of now )

This is the thread to aid in development of new ideas and classes. Post working rules and gather feedback!

Moderator: hbartel

Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

I don't think we really need to debate class vs. class at this point. What we need is demos demos demos. We are going to try to do a demo next weekend with a different line up of planes. (Slashers,48"Spec.Class and Wasps)

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

Jimbo,
I've been thinking about this a lot. You need limits, but some freedom for personal expression. If you want limited B to be a "local, draw new folks in class", then how bout these as working rules:

1. Airplane must be a commercially available kit, built according to plans. No modifications to wing size, shape, airfoil or position on fuselage is permitted. No modifications may be made to the fuselage shape and thickness. No modifications deemed to be "performance enhancing" will be allowed. Substitution of materials is not allowed, for instance a foam wing of greater density foam is not allowed. Acceptable, contest permitted, Limited B kits are:
<ul><li>Lanier Slasher </li>
<li>GRS ARF Falcon 64"</li>
<li>Team Seaholm Avenger 64 </li>
<li>Hattrick RC Bat Trick</li><li>Texas Combat Supplied Cobra S4</li>

I may have missed some but you get the general idea.</ul>
2. Minimum weight ready to fly 3lbs 4 ounces

3. .28 maximum engine displacement. Must be "stock" with no modifications. (I suggest you go cheap and list a price to keep everyone in line, instead of having some Webras show up).

4. 15,500 max rpms, checked by judge before launch (or whatever you decide on)

5. APC 10X3 prop (or whatever you decide on).

6. Only muffler pressure allowed. The use of systems using any form of pressure boost other than muffler pressure is not allowed. Specifically excluded fuel systems include:
<ul><li>Bladder tanks </li><li> Bubble less tanks </li><li> Crankcase pressure assisted tanks </li></ul>
7. Stock muffler only. Muffler must have enclosed front and be the one that came with the engine. No muffler modifications allowed.

This leaves competitors some room to choose airframes, it prevents folks from out designing the manufacturers, it assures everyone is on a relatively level playing field and it takes the cost of making your own kit out of the mix.

Lou Melancon
Alpharetta, Georgia
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

I'm against spec'ing any specific airframes. It's not needed and eliminates or at least makes it very difficult for any new manufacturer to get started and eliminates a whole bunch of planes being flown. It would be a CD nightmare to prove a kit is really stock. Just in my Bat Trick line there have been many evolutions and modifications. Which would be legal?

<font color="red"> The only way to increase performace with the limited engine specifications is to increase wing area and decrease wing loading.</font id="red">
Set a realtively high minimum weight and a maximum wing area and there will be very little that can be done to improve performance and a whole lot of designs are competative. From Spads to Cobras.

If anyone can prove me wrong here I'll eat my hat.
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Thanks Lou, that was a well thought out suggestion but I'm going to have to agree with Mike. It leaves out way to many existing pilots and planes. We still have lots of time to continue testing and that's all we are going to do for now. I must admit Mike's idea about wing area limits is looking pretty good.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

I didn't like the idea of airframe limits at first, but I think Doc has convinced me, and I like his formula of max w/s, along with the sum of root and tip chord. I also think his suggestion of 3.5# min weight (up from 3.0#) is worth consideration.

Scott Gilkey
thojo
Posts: 1926
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 1:20 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by thojo »

I definately would not support a "commercially" supplied kit clause. I can't afford to spend that kind of money on kits.. I like the spec limits on wings to keep wing loading similar across the board...

Pictures of airplane stuff:
http://jwtfamily.org/rcgallery
__________________________________
Speed is life
Altitude is life Insurance
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

With a 3.5 pound minimum Travis and I would be excluded from this class. I can't speak for Travis but I'm not going to strap a half pound of lead on my plane.It is well armored already. However,if this is what the majority wants than that's the way it should be. I still have other classes(48"SpecB)to pursue.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

The more I've thought of the pros and cons I've turned a little in regards to wing specs. I will say that I do like Doc Evil's suggestions when it comes to the wing specs but I won't support moving the weight limit up beyond 3 lbs. I know that the 2548 guys are at that point but they're goals of flight performance are different in my mind than ours. My 3lb 4-5oz (which by the way is where most are anyway) WASP gives up nothing to Jimbo's Raptors which are right at the 3lb limit. If you have the limitations on the wing area that should put a cap on performance while still allowing a little creativity at the same time keeping all commercially available products in the game and competitive with no reason to have to reegineer to keep up with the Jones' so to speak...

Lou, thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate you putting your efforts towards working with us on developing a set of rules that is feasilbe...

Image
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

How about 3# 4oz???
Bob Leone
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 11:56 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bob Leone »

<b>Let's fly some combat.</b>
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

I fly it every weekend Bob but thanks for the suggestion....[:p]

Image
User avatar
lightning
Posts: 1444
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:53 pm
Location: USA

Post by lightning »

BigCountry<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">........ at the same time keeping all commercially available products in the game and competitive with no reason to have to reegineer to keep up with the Jones' so to speak...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Jeez, I never considered for a minute that <b>ANYONE </b>was having the least bit of difficulty keeping up with me [:D][:D][:D]



Keith <b>Jones</b> (member OGC)
Radio Control Club of Detroit
RCCA #622
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Ya, you never even suspected that you were the center of the combat universe did you Keith [;)][:p][:D]

Image
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

"With a 3.5 pound minimum Travis and I would be excluded from this class. I can't speak for Travis but I'm not going to strap a half pound of lead on my plane."

I may be the only one, but I am getting a bit bored with this type of inflexibility. First 10x3APC, now this. If you guys want to make Raptor class or Jimbo/Travis Class, because it is PRECISELY what you are flying now, have at it, and let us all know.

NEWS FLASH: All of us would have to strap on ballast to make 3.5 pound minimum, since we can't exceed 3.5 pounds for current B. The key is making a class whose rules have long-term longevity and avoids the seemingly-inevitable spiral of peformance escalation, not to make it maximally convenient for you to use your current planes and props. You seem to be fine with folks who may have to cut their wings or make other changes, but you don't want to change a prop or add some weight. Sheeesh.

If you want to fly your own specific brand, drafted closely to what you have hanging from your rafters, let us know, so we can move on with our own version which we think is best for ALL concerned. If you want rules that have real "legs," we'd appreciated a bit more thoughtful consideration. I'm not saying that 3.5 pounds is the silver bullet, but you don't even want to consider it? HOw does this approach fit in with the idea of "provisional" and "demo?"

So now tell us all how adding 4 or 8 ounces to your planes is going to ruin Limited B for you? You've already said you have the tightest turning planes out there, you really think a quarter or half a pound is going to ruin them?

Scott Gilkey
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

OK Scott you just did a great job of chastizing Jim for his thoughts why do <b>YOU</b> feel that the planes need to weigh 3.5 pounds rather than 3? If we were to follow Mike Fredericks suggestion on wing area limitations that should be an effective enough solution to limit the engineering race why do we need to strap another 8 oz's on these planes? What goal does that serve?

<i>Jimbo said-</i><blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">However,if this is what the majority wants than that's the way it should be.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

And while Jim maybe blundt he and I have said from the get go that if the group wants something that we'll follow along from MA props cause <b>YA'LL</b> break to many APC's to wing limitations to minimum weight if necessary.

Image
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”