2548 Official rules - scale tail feathers

All things related to 2548 Scale

Moderator: hbartel

Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

No problem, but look at the list. There are quite a few planes on it that didn`t see action in WWII. Bearcat, Tigercat, F-82, are some that I know of off the top of my head. The reason that the rules read as they do is so that planes that were designed and tested during WWII, for WWII missions, and that went into production and saw air to air combat could be included.

If not for "the bomb" The AD-1 and those planes listed above would have all seen action in the WWII Pacific Theater. That`s the reason that the rules read as they do. It was not an afterthought so that someone`s existing plane could be flown.

Specifically, the Skyraiders that I have flown in 2548 have all had electric power, and share no interchangeable parts with my old 2610 Skyraider design. My 2610 Skyraiders were all powered by Webra .25s on 30% nitro, had 55" wingspans and their structure was much stronger. They are obviously both modeled after the same aircraft, but are completely different designs.
ptsullivan
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 1:04 pm
Location: USA

Post by ptsullivan »

The fact is that the AD-1 is on the list. The time to complain about it was 1 year ago. We have to
live with what its inclusion does to the credibility of 2548 as a WWII scale class. If I had the
opportunity to fly 2548 more I would have probably cared more then and more now. Since I do not get
to fly 2548 I feel that I should leave its refinement to those who do.

So just for clarification: Does "Flown before 1946" apply to prototypes, and not operational service.
There were differences between the XBT2D-1 and the AD-1.
THend
Posts: 2397
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:12 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by THend »

With real apples....not "those" apples..

Good news is, we are all still "active" on the forum...

For a moment, I felt like a world class fly line fisherman....[;)][:D]
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

Pete,

The intent of the wording was to mean a man carrying, full-scale prototype flew on or before that date.

I am getting ready to apply the changes approved for next year, and thought some of the history of the changes on the date range and selection criteria might be useful.

- Version 1 (2004) - The model must be a scale replica of a propeller driven fighter or fighter bomber that was in active combat squadron service between 9/1939 and 8/1945 and scored aerial victories against manned aircraft during that period. Planes not designed for a primary or secondary offensive air-to-air combat role (e.g. dive bombers, ground attack, torpedo bombers, light bombers, medium bombers, etc.) are prohibited. Aircraft that had guns mounted for defensive purposes only shall not qualify as fighter/fighter bomber aircraft. Paper studies, mockups, prototypes, limited production and other types of aircraft that did not serve in active combat squadrons are prohibited, even if they did participate in combat. Active combat squadron service is defined as a unit of twelve or more production planes of the same type deployed to a combat theatre, certified as combat ready by their commanders.

The intent here was that we would limit the planes to those whose roles were primarily air-to-air or had a significant air-to-air capability

- Version 2 (2006) - This incorporated changes from Serg and Chris to allow the IL-2 and P-82, the latter requiring a date range change:
The model must be a scale replica of a propeller driven fighter or fighter bomber that was in active combat squadron service between 9/1939 and 7/1953 and scored aerial victories against manned aircraft during that period. (snip)

This also allows the AD Skyraider to fit in

- Version 2008.3 - Mid-year, Keith Jones proposed a complete revision to the selection criteria, which was passed:
The aircraft must be a scale model:
- of a single or twin piston engined aircraft
- that flew prior to 1946
- that saw air-to-air combat or active squadron service at some point (including after 1945)
- is listed in the RCCA 2548 2007 Provisional Rules Appendix A (the approved Aircraft List)
The RCCA Rules Committee, when requested, is responsible for judging whether or not aircraft meet the above criteria and may add aircraft to the list at their discretion at any time (i.e. without the need to wait for a normal Class Rules cycle).

This basically opened the gates for everything from an L-4 Grasshopper armed with a Thompson SMG (last USAAF victory of WW2 by some accounts) up to a He-177 (if you buy into two siamesed engines counting as one), each proposal being subject to Board approval to keep the lid on things

I am not taking a shot at anybody, just recounting the history on how this has evolved since 2002/2003 as a concept through some maturing steps to where we are today. I, for one, strongly opposed adding attack planes because they have the potential to unbalance the playing field, but the Board voted otherwise, so we move on.

On the topic of scale deviation, we avoided a fixed deviation for a variety of reasons, and used the following wording to disallow planes that were "camouflaged B ships":
Aircraft shall meet all requirements defined in sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 of these rules, or be disqualified from entry, judging and combat. The CD/judges may disqualify a model from the contest if they decide that it does not effectively represent a World War 2 fighter/fighter bomber on the Approved Aircraft List (Appendix A). A CD is under no requirement to allow a plane to fly because another CD allowed it at a prior contest.

This puts the onus on the CD and the participants to cry "foul" if someone tries to make a pretzel out of the rules. If you don't like it, speak up. Ask to see the three-view. If you let them slide ...

Ed
tfilemyr
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: USA

Post by tfilemyr »

But seriously, just a few planes come to mind when I think of WWII and its those few that spark my enthusiasm. At this point Im not caring so much if they are top performers as long as they are at least in the hunt. The 48" rule and 10% allowance seem to equalize the vast differences between uncommon giants like say the AD-1 and the most produced fighter of the war (cough) Bf-109. It is starting to sound like its just a question of how much effort are you willing to put into building a light, efficient, expendable plane.

Besides, from what I've seen so far guys who do well in SSC do well in 2548 and so on. So after all is said and done what matters most? [;)]
ptsullivan
Posts: 232
Joined: Wed Jul 17, 2002 1:04 pm
Location: USA

Post by ptsullivan »

Tim,
You are exactly right. This whole thing is about the enthusiasm. Too quickly we
forget that. The second rule of RC Combat is everyone has fun (the first rule is
everyone is safe.) You can't have fun unless you are out there flying. I am going to
make it a point to enjoy flying scale warbirds in whatever class I can find and let the
rules take care of themselves.
User avatar
tmelton
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:29 am
Location: Southern California
Contact:

Post by tmelton »

In a scale class event I don't understand why anybody would fly anything that was not recognizable by the average spectator. I would much rather fly a P-51, Zero, P-47, ME-109, Spitfire, FW190, or an F4U Corsair than an AD1 Sky Raider. When I think of recognizable WWII combat planes I don't think of the AD1 and neither does anyone else especially the spectators. The advantage gained by flying something obscure would not be worth the harassment you could garner.

It is likely that we will start flying scale again here on the west coast next year. If we do and somebody shows up with a sky raider we will give him enough grief to make him move to Texas.
THend
Posts: 2397
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:12 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by THend »

Todd, I'll be flying Sky Raiders... nyuck nyuck nyuck...
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

I dare ya Terry LOL.
Post Reply