<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">If they weren't on the drawing board before the end of the war, they weren't intended to be in it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
No, if they wern't firing their guns in anger, they shouldn't be in it. If some poor scared kid whose best friend just got his head blown off over Zweibrucken didn't fly in it, it shouldn't even be considered...
Terry, I know where your coming from, and I DO respect your opinions, but I feel that mockups, paperstudies, and the like just don't have a place in WWII combat. They're cool, don't get me wrong, but if a living, breathing human being didn't climb in it and lived/died for his country, whether Axis or Allied, then that plane never saw combat and shouldn't be allowed to fly in scale combat. In my heart I feel that if we allowed those planes to fly, then it would be an insult to the memory of those would fought in that conflict. Of course, that's just my opinion.
As far as attack planes go, let's just wait and see how this thing develops. I guarantee you the issue is not going to go away, but we're just getting this thing started, let's use 'the list" for now, and see how most of the RCCA scale fraternity feels about mid-year.
Anyway, I don't want to be in the vicinity if someone tries to make a go of a 2548 Foce-Wulf "Triebflugel"..that would be scary...[:D]
Corrections to the fighter list
Moderator: hbartel
I agree that the current rules for 2548 are up setting alot of very skilled builder by limiting the designs available to build. Pilots from the southwest region even proposed a small list yet when asked to evaluate the list of ID able aircaft on the first draft of 2548 rules last year. But Like many other things in life we have had time to look them over even further and have found the error in our own observations of the rules and realised that we should allow more planes to be on the list as the 48" wing span rule in conjunction with the prop, weight, and RPM limits clears up the problem that we had with 2610 which allowed the "ODD-BALLS" to have an advantage over the old traditional frontline fighters!! I for one am in full support of the list of planes for 2548 to be expanded to include more aircraft from the old 2610 line up.. After all this hobby / sport is supposed to be fun for all of use right?
If we are out to recreat WWII combat.. then go back to true 1/12th scale planes and hold a battle scenario of the Battle of Britain with Spitfires, and ME109's only for crying out load!
I for one want to fly scale combat against the best pilots in my area. And if they want to build a ODD-BALL, fighter bomber, attach plane, as long as it meets the weight, wing span, prop, & RPM... I say fly it!![}:)]
So... Lets build a list of planes that we would like to see added to the current 2548 rules from 1939 to 1945 and lets go from there!! OK?
I for one will be flying the new F4U from great planes which is 2610 & 2548 legal. And I think I will also fly one of Serg's P-40 in 2548 as well...
Great Planes & Serg have steped up to support our hobby & sport.. And by God I am going to support them.
So this is my side of it all.
In the words of my good friend Hank Hill!
"Dang it Bobby, put that thing away boy before you go blind!"
If we are out to recreat WWII combat.. then go back to true 1/12th scale planes and hold a battle scenario of the Battle of Britain with Spitfires, and ME109's only for crying out load!
I for one want to fly scale combat against the best pilots in my area. And if they want to build a ODD-BALL, fighter bomber, attach plane, as long as it meets the weight, wing span, prop, & RPM... I say fly it!![}:)]
So... Lets build a list of planes that we would like to see added to the current 2548 rules from 1939 to 1945 and lets go from there!! OK?
I for one will be flying the new F4U from great planes which is 2610 & 2548 legal. And I think I will also fly one of Serg's P-40 in 2548 as well...
Great Planes & Serg have steped up to support our hobby & sport.. And by God I am going to support them.
So this is my side of it all.
In the words of my good friend Hank Hill!
"Dang it Bobby, put that thing away boy before you go blind!"
-
Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Thought I would add a few ramblings.
Evil oddballs: I agree with Rabbit Leader. The plane should have been built and flown in combat in order to be allowed. I think the rules had a minium number produced/flown rule in order to be included. That is fine with me.
Biplanes: Ed had asked if biplanes should be allowed. I think if it meets the production/flown rules and was used as a FLF then yes it should be allowed. I suspect that biplanes will not be competitive but would be fun to see in the air.
2548 do not interfere with 2610: I had thought about this after building my first 2548 plane. Serg is right. As soon as people start flying 2548 planes and see how great they fly and how fun they are 2610 is going to completely die. Is this bad? I do not think it is. I suspect that at some point 2548 will split into open and limited classes. The limited class will have stock mufflers and 10" props and the open version will have pipes and 9" props. People will scream that the open or limited version will kill the other, cats and dogs will rain from the sky and the end of the world will be upon us. And then life will go on. Just remember that at some point someone else will discover (I really should say design) something even better and 2548 will be replaced.
Attack planes: I think this is a tough one and nobody is going to be happy. May I propose something that would be hard to do and will require better brains than mine? Ed has done some work with a bomber. I have thought about building an A-26. Serg loves the IL-2. None of these are direct fighters and often flew with fighter escorts. Could we come up with an additional set of rules that could include them? We would need to take a close look at them and set design limits (Power/Prop/Wingspan) and rules of engagement. Maybe all such planes should be able to drop at least one bomb? Should have a target? Must fly so long before dropping the bomb? Might require two streamers? Must attack target before being allowed to chase other planes(True bombers should never be allowed to chase other planes)? What I am trying to say is that instead of just including them they should have a reason to be there. I know that this gets into the team concept and some people may not like that but is there any reason that it could not be included? Maybe as a subset of the 2548 rules?
Maybe there is a way to design a loose team concept. If you are assigned to the side with an attack/bomber then you get so many points if it retains it's streamers until it makes an attack run. Maybe so many points for each foot of streamer that the attack/bomber has at the end of the round (With my flying ability I would do everything I could to protect the attack/bomber if I could get 1 point per foot that remained on them [:)] ).
There is a number of issues here but with the brains of this group I think we could do something!
And lets face it. Real missions would be fun as all get out!!!
Evil oddballs: I agree with Rabbit Leader. The plane should have been built and flown in combat in order to be allowed. I think the rules had a minium number produced/flown rule in order to be included. That is fine with me.
Biplanes: Ed had asked if biplanes should be allowed. I think if it meets the production/flown rules and was used as a FLF then yes it should be allowed. I suspect that biplanes will not be competitive but would be fun to see in the air.
2548 do not interfere with 2610: I had thought about this after building my first 2548 plane. Serg is right. As soon as people start flying 2548 planes and see how great they fly and how fun they are 2610 is going to completely die. Is this bad? I do not think it is. I suspect that at some point 2548 will split into open and limited classes. The limited class will have stock mufflers and 10" props and the open version will have pipes and 9" props. People will scream that the open or limited version will kill the other, cats and dogs will rain from the sky and the end of the world will be upon us. And then life will go on. Just remember that at some point someone else will discover (I really should say design) something even better and 2548 will be replaced.
Attack planes: I think this is a tough one and nobody is going to be happy. May I propose something that would be hard to do and will require better brains than mine? Ed has done some work with a bomber. I have thought about building an A-26. Serg loves the IL-2. None of these are direct fighters and often flew with fighter escorts. Could we come up with an additional set of rules that could include them? We would need to take a close look at them and set design limits (Power/Prop/Wingspan) and rules of engagement. Maybe all such planes should be able to drop at least one bomb? Should have a target? Must fly so long before dropping the bomb? Might require two streamers? Must attack target before being allowed to chase other planes(True bombers should never be allowed to chase other planes)? What I am trying to say is that instead of just including them they should have a reason to be there. I know that this gets into the team concept and some people may not like that but is there any reason that it could not be included? Maybe as a subset of the 2548 rules?
Maybe there is a way to design a loose team concept. If you are assigned to the side with an attack/bomber then you get so many points if it retains it's streamers until it makes an attack run. Maybe so many points for each foot of streamer that the attack/bomber has at the end of the round (With my flying ability I would do everything I could to protect the attack/bomber if I could get 1 point per foot that remained on them [:)] ).
There is a number of issues here but with the brains of this group I think we could do something!
And lets face it. Real missions would be fun as all get out!!!
Cash, thanks for your input. That pretty much illuminates why the class is what it is. For me, it is a game and a chance to learn something while having fun. History is more than just what happened, folks spend lifetimes studying what did happen, the mistakes made, and what could have happened ie the "what ifs". I am interested in all of it, and it is amazing how close Germany was with the Hortens, the Japanese had thousands of planes in caves almost ready, and even the US had cool planes like the Northrop P79 and Manta. All of this IS a part of history, and is worth knowing and doing.
You guys go do your thing, I'll go do mine, and if our paths cross well so be it. I am done, I can bury the horse now.
You guys go do your thing, I'll go do mine, and if our paths cross well so be it. I am done, I can bury the horse now.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ed Kettler</i>
<br />Serg,
Please generate a list of planes you think meet the attack plane criteria for WW2 and post them. Thanks, Ed <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why only attackers?
My point is: <u>any restriction should have serious reason.</u>
My goal is: <font color="purple"><b>let allow all existing prototype fly sport scale combat contest except absolute weapon.</b></font id="purple">
(Remember we are creating class able substitute existing scale class in a future).
2548 standards have all required parameters to avoid absolute weapon: Certain wingspan certain engine power and certain minimum weight.
Varying this parameters we can easily adjust rules to avoid absolute weapon. Without creating conflict approved /not approved prototype.
Personally I cannot see reason for approval list at all inside 2548 technical standards.
I would rather create a list of illegal prototype if some prototype able to be an absolute weapon. (Every time we should explain why certain prototype is absolute weapon).
If you need more restriction: it should be natural parameters like:
Years in service <font color="green">OK</font id="green">
Number in service <font color="green">OK</font id="green">
Minimum Wing loading for multiengine prototypes <font color="green">OK</font id="green">
<br />Serg,
Please generate a list of planes you think meet the attack plane criteria for WW2 and post them. Thanks, Ed <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Why only attackers?
My point is: <u>any restriction should have serious reason.</u>
My goal is: <font color="purple"><b>let allow all existing prototype fly sport scale combat contest except absolute weapon.</b></font id="purple">
(Remember we are creating class able substitute existing scale class in a future).
2548 standards have all required parameters to avoid absolute weapon: Certain wingspan certain engine power and certain minimum weight.
Varying this parameters we can easily adjust rules to avoid absolute weapon. Without creating conflict approved /not approved prototype.
Personally I cannot see reason for approval list at all inside 2548 technical standards.
I would rather create a list of illegal prototype if some prototype able to be an absolute weapon. (Every time we should explain why certain prototype is absolute weapon).
If you need more restriction: it should be natural parameters like:
Years in service <font color="green">OK</font id="green">
Number in service <font color="green">OK</font id="green">
Minimum Wing loading for multiengine prototypes <font color="green">OK</font id="green">
-
Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
-
Which_way_is_up
- Posts: 1637
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
-
wparmenter
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 9:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Since this is in the public forum, I think Serg has the privilege of posting his opinion here just like anyone else. Of course once this becomes a 'voteable' matter non-members will not have much of a say. I tend to agree with Serg on the IL2. I think it was the most produced aircraft in WWII. I could be wrong though. I also think as long as the wingspans and wing areas are not far from the frontline fighters scaled to 48", they would perform similarly. This is just my opinion.
I am disappointed in the two previous comments, especially from the Pres and Sec. How do you grow an org with that attitude? That was bad press. I for one know bad press as I certainly have had made enough of my own!
RCCA membership is not a criteria to discuss combat, the future, the rules, or anything else. A good portion of the world flies combat and does not belong to the RCCA.
You guys are above that. I may not be LOL, but you certainly are. Serg, I apologize as an RCCA member that you were hit with that.
TH
PS, Serg, if you are not a member of the RCCA, I will buy you a membership. Email me, and I will buy you a one year membership.
RCCA membership is not a criteria to discuss combat, the future, the rules, or anything else. A good portion of the world flies combat and does not belong to the RCCA.
You guys are above that. I may not be LOL, but you certainly are. Serg, I apologize as an RCCA member that you were hit with that.
TH
PS, Serg, if you are not a member of the RCCA, I will buy you a membership. Email me, and I will buy you a one year membership.
I think folks should ask themselves if their post could start with one of these sentences...
1. I think this idea would increase participation in combat because...
or,
2. I think this idea would increase the enjoyment of folks already participating in combat because...
If your post could start out with...
1. I want to have it like this...
2. This would be better for me because...
or
3. I would be happy if...
...then perhaps it isn't realistic to ask people who worked very hard to set something up to change it to fit your personal agenda. Especially since it doesn't work that way anyway- it has to be proposed and go through the board. I also think there's a difference between expressing your opinion and asking an organization you're not a member of to change the rules of one of their events. As a member who just wrote out a 30 dollar check I'd be concerned if I had a President who bent to the whim of everyone with an internet connection. But that's just me...
Oh, and before you ask- I don't fly scale. And though I work quite hard to set up one of the larger combat meets in the North I don't include scale. This kind of thread is one of the reasons.
1. I think this idea would increase participation in combat because...
or,
2. I think this idea would increase the enjoyment of folks already participating in combat because...
If your post could start out with...
1. I want to have it like this...
2. This would be better for me because...
or
3. I would be happy if...
...then perhaps it isn't realistic to ask people who worked very hard to set something up to change it to fit your personal agenda. Especially since it doesn't work that way anyway- it has to be proposed and go through the board. I also think there's a difference between expressing your opinion and asking an organization you're not a member of to change the rules of one of their events. As a member who just wrote out a 30 dollar check I'd be concerned if I had a President who bent to the whim of everyone with an internet connection. But that's just me...
Oh, and before you ask- I don't fly scale. And though I work quite hard to set up one of the larger combat meets in the North I don't include scale. This kind of thread is one of the reasons.
-
Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Terry,
I had a long conversation with James Schell the other night, and I think I understand where you are coming from with your West Coast perspective. Your pilots do not travel to out of state contests much, and therefore NPS does not mean that much to your scale community. Go forth and do great things using 2548 as a template. Just make sure your pilots understand that when they travel to a contest outside your area that they understand the current 2548 rules so they don't have problems on their arrival. Please keep in touch so we can share in the knowledge you develop through flying the non-2548 approved planes.
Serg,
2548 is not for everybody. As I have stated before, the rules were based on 2610 and comments from the last 2610 rules change process. What the people that made up the community wanted was fighters that flew in combat squadrons in WW2. That is what 2548 delivers. I have politely asked you several times for what you want, and all I get is what you don't want, which is the list. The list is a core feature of 2548 because it is helpful to those folks who run contests, the designers, the kit manufacturers and the pilot builders. This helps people who do not have access to an extended aviation library.
No set of rules are perfect because there are different constituencies in the community with different views. You don't like the restrictions on 2548. I got the message <b>LOUD AND CLEAR</b>. There are other people in the community that really like the list. There is a process for RCCA members to submit change proposals documented in the PnP. Banging your shoe on the table in this forum every time the list is brought up is not building any rapport with the Board members who will eventually vote on the 2548 changes; as a matter of fact, it is alienating them.
Successful business people adapt to change. You have started making the move with the P-40, which, by the way, looks great. I can't wait to see Dane's fly when it is finished. If, as you predict, 2548 draws pilots away from 2610, then you need to continue to respond to the shift in demand by building planes that the growing market wants to own. Your request for input from the community in another forum thread is a great way to understand the new market. You can fight the change, or you can take advantage of it.
As a non-member, you are welcome to post here. However, when it comes to rules matters, only member input through the proper procedures matters. If the members want to open up the scope of 2548 to include attack planes (dive bombers, torp bombers, antitank planes, ground attack) then there is a process to follow.
Back to the shop!
Ed
I had a long conversation with James Schell the other night, and I think I understand where you are coming from with your West Coast perspective. Your pilots do not travel to out of state contests much, and therefore NPS does not mean that much to your scale community. Go forth and do great things using 2548 as a template. Just make sure your pilots understand that when they travel to a contest outside your area that they understand the current 2548 rules so they don't have problems on their arrival. Please keep in touch so we can share in the knowledge you develop through flying the non-2548 approved planes.
Serg,
2548 is not for everybody. As I have stated before, the rules were based on 2610 and comments from the last 2610 rules change process. What the people that made up the community wanted was fighters that flew in combat squadrons in WW2. That is what 2548 delivers. I have politely asked you several times for what you want, and all I get is what you don't want, which is the list. The list is a core feature of 2548 because it is helpful to those folks who run contests, the designers, the kit manufacturers and the pilot builders. This helps people who do not have access to an extended aviation library.
No set of rules are perfect because there are different constituencies in the community with different views. You don't like the restrictions on 2548. I got the message <b>LOUD AND CLEAR</b>. There are other people in the community that really like the list. There is a process for RCCA members to submit change proposals documented in the PnP. Banging your shoe on the table in this forum every time the list is brought up is not building any rapport with the Board members who will eventually vote on the 2548 changes; as a matter of fact, it is alienating them.
Successful business people adapt to change. You have started making the move with the P-40, which, by the way, looks great. I can't wait to see Dane's fly when it is finished. If, as you predict, 2548 draws pilots away from 2610, then you need to continue to respond to the shift in demand by building planes that the growing market wants to own. Your request for input from the community in another forum thread is a great way to understand the new market. You can fight the change, or you can take advantage of it.
As a non-member, you are welcome to post here. However, when it comes to rules matters, only member input through the proper procedures matters. If the members want to open up the scope of 2548 to include attack planes (dive bombers, torp bombers, antitank planes, ground attack) then there is a process to follow.
Back to the shop!
Ed
-
wrnstockwel
- Posts: 162
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2003 8:49 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Getting cold. Ed, this post especially for you. (from: not member Serg)
Dear Ed I’m really sorry for bothering you SIG.
But don be scared. Non-member cannot change anything.
Feel relax. I am not going continue my RCCA membership (# 635) therefore you can ignore all my post.
Thanks for reminding me aging: not fly scale 2548 combat. (You already made this suggestion several months before. Quote <<Feel free not fly 2548>> Thank You! Thank You! Thank YOU!
Ed, you asking about my variant of approval list.
(Actually yesterday I was happy because I was believe: people begin try to understand).
I do accept: my English is difficult for understanding (but it is scientific fact: native speaker is able to understand foreigner, if he try to understand.)
I was sure my answers is clear enough:
Quote: <<My goal is: <font color="purple">let allow all existing prototype fly sport scale combat contest except absolute weapon</font id="purple">. >>
(The same in other words: any existing prototype has right to participate in scale contest if it do not have obvious super advantage versus all other).
I am really think: quote<< 1. I think this idea would increase participation in combat because... much more people have chance fly his favorite prototype.
2) I do have evidence <the approval list> will decrease number of pilots participating in official events.
Is it clear enough?
One more repeats in other words: Personally I cannot see reason for approval list. I do accept list of illegal prototypes (if series reason exist).
Mother nature (mother history) already creates the list for scale modeling.
Guys I am really happy to have so many friends! Thanks for your support! I like the RCCA!
Let fly together!
Have a fun!
Ed, Thanks for good words about our product.
We also hope: it will be significantly improved after field information come back.
Here my request for all users of our product: if you have some damage after combat please keep me posted (personally or in special topic on forum) images description, suggestions.
We need information from field.
Dear Ed I’m really sorry for bothering you SIG.
But don be scared. Non-member cannot change anything.
Feel relax. I am not going continue my RCCA membership (# 635) therefore you can ignore all my post.
Thanks for reminding me aging: not fly scale 2548 combat. (You already made this suggestion several months before. Quote <<Feel free not fly 2548>> Thank You! Thank You! Thank YOU!
Ed, you asking about my variant of approval list.
(Actually yesterday I was happy because I was believe: people begin try to understand).
I do accept: my English is difficult for understanding (but it is scientific fact: native speaker is able to understand foreigner, if he try to understand.)
I was sure my answers is clear enough:
Quote: <<My goal is: <font color="purple">let allow all existing prototype fly sport scale combat contest except absolute weapon</font id="purple">. >>
(The same in other words: any existing prototype has right to participate in scale contest if it do not have obvious super advantage versus all other).
I am really think: quote<< 1. I think this idea would increase participation in combat because... much more people have chance fly his favorite prototype.
2) I do have evidence <the approval list> will decrease number of pilots participating in official events.
Is it clear enough?
One more repeats in other words: Personally I cannot see reason for approval list. I do accept list of illegal prototypes (if series reason exist).
Mother nature (mother history) already creates the list for scale modeling.
Guys I am really happy to have so many friends! Thanks for your support! I like the RCCA!
Let fly together!
Have a fun! Ed, Thanks for good words about our product.
We also hope: it will be significantly improved after field information come back.
Here my request for all users of our product: if you have some damage after combat please keep me posted (personally or in special topic on forum) images description, suggestions.
We need information from field.