Limited-B Rules ( as of now )
Moderator: hbartel
-
- Posts: 434
- Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:43 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Scott, Dude, it looks like you're having another bad day.[:)] I think we're all trying to be respectfull of each others opinions.
At the begginning of this thread, Travis posted this:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Purpose for Limited B class:
What goals are we trying to achieve with the creation of a Limited B class?
1. Reduce the amount of carnage that takes place in Open B combat
2. Keep as much of the excitement level of Open B as possible
3. Reduce Open B speeds thereby increasing the possibility of attracting new combat fliers.
The purpose of the Limited B class is not to replace Open B as a class nor to change it in any way. Open B has always been and will always be the biggest adrenaline rush to be found in combat. Limited B is designed to extend the lives of the combat aircraft given new building techniques and materials as well as enticing prospective new combat fliers or the old combat flier who likes the performance a .25-.28 sized motor can offer. It is built upon the success of the SSC class and is meant to offer combat fliers a choice in how they choose to slow down their combat.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
They've defined their initial objectives and reasons for creating a "Limited B" class.
You mention "so we can move on with our own version which we think is best for ALL concerned".
I've read several of your posts, and I can't figure out exactly what you want to accomplish. Maybe you could give us a list of what <i>you</i> see as objectives for a "Limited" B class so we can find some sort of common ground.
If I'm going to be asked to support something, I want to know why I'm being asked to support it.
Mark LaBoyteaux
Ft. Worth, Texas
At the begginning of this thread, Travis posted this:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Purpose for Limited B class:
What goals are we trying to achieve with the creation of a Limited B class?
1. Reduce the amount of carnage that takes place in Open B combat
2. Keep as much of the excitement level of Open B as possible
3. Reduce Open B speeds thereby increasing the possibility of attracting new combat fliers.
The purpose of the Limited B class is not to replace Open B as a class nor to change it in any way. Open B has always been and will always be the biggest adrenaline rush to be found in combat. Limited B is designed to extend the lives of the combat aircraft given new building techniques and materials as well as enticing prospective new combat fliers or the old combat flier who likes the performance a .25-.28 sized motor can offer. It is built upon the success of the SSC class and is meant to offer combat fliers a choice in how they choose to slow down their combat.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
They've defined their initial objectives and reasons for creating a "Limited B" class.
You mention "so we can move on with our own version which we think is best for ALL concerned".
I've read several of your posts, and I can't figure out exactly what you want to accomplish. Maybe you could give us a list of what <i>you</i> see as objectives for a "Limited" B class so we can find some sort of common ground.
If I'm going to be asked to support something, I want to know why I'm being asked to support it.
Mark LaBoyteaux
Ft. Worth, Texas
I think there are several good reasons to increase the weight.
1. I think it is good to have to add ballast (banked weight for repairs!) or have room in the weight considerations to use more armor or full size radio gear etc instead of it being almost a given that you have to use small and more expensive gear to get near the minimum weight and have enough armor.
It will help increase wing loading a bit which decrease turning ability which whould help decrease midairs. If you accept the 64" span and 18" root and tip chords and raise the weight to 3.5 the wing loading will be about the same as what is being flown now with smaller wings and a 3# weight.
If you leave the weight the same and add the wing area of 64" and 18" chord you will have increased the turning ability.
This larger wing will weigh more and you'll be scratching your head and buying small gear or giving up armor to get close to the 3# minimum.
A higher weight minimum helps the new guy have competative planes with a wide variety of construction methods.
1. I think it is good to have to add ballast (banked weight for repairs!) or have room in the weight considerations to use more armor or full size radio gear etc instead of it being almost a given that you have to use small and more expensive gear to get near the minimum weight and have enough armor.
It will help increase wing loading a bit which decrease turning ability which whould help decrease midairs. If you accept the 64" span and 18" root and tip chords and raise the weight to 3.5 the wing loading will be about the same as what is being flown now with smaller wings and a 3# weight.
If you leave the weight the same and add the wing area of 64" and 18" chord you will have increased the turning ability.
This larger wing will weigh more and you'll be scratching your head and buying small gear or giving up armor to get close to the 3# minimum.
A higher weight minimum helps the new guy have competative planes with a wide variety of construction methods.
-
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am
Mike,
Thank you for detailing your reasons. I appreciate you taking time to list them out for me. I will think about what you had to say this weekend while we're flying. Jim is bringing his highly sensitive A/C scale to the field so that we can get as accurate as possible weight measurements on all the planes flown and possibly even add some weight to some if necessary to bulk them up to 3.5 to see what we think. Thanks again...
Thank you for detailing your reasons. I appreciate you taking time to list them out for me. I will think about what you had to say this weekend while we're flying. Jim is bringing his highly sensitive A/C scale to the field so that we can get as accurate as possible weight measurements on all the planes flown and possibly even add some weight to some if necessary to bulk them up to 3.5 to see what we think. Thanks again...
Travis, you left a little something off of Jimbos quote- sure he said if that's what the majority want, go ahead, then finished off with "I still have other classes(48"SpecB)to pursue." I think its quite clear he was implying the 3.5 pounds was off the table for him.
IN hindsight, I should not have assumed he spoke for you, though you spoke for yourself in stating in the next post "but I won't support moving the weight limit up beyond 3 lbs." Sounds pretty no-go to me.
I think the reasons for a 3.5# lower limit are pretty self-evident as we have all thrashed the concept of weight minimums to death for SSC so we know what they accomplish (at least in theory). What I thought I did not hear was a rational reason for why 3.0# was so inviolable, other than you guys didn't like to add weight to your planes. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but it seemed to me you said that your 3 1/4 pound planes performed as well as the 3.0 pounders. So why the resistance to add some ballast?
Maybe I am thinking about this wrong. I am thinking that with a 3 pound minimum, and Doc's wing area suggestions, which will still allow for some pretty large wings, that folks will still need to use mini gear, tiny batteries, etc. to try to make the weight minimum, as it seems logical that folks will strive for that. I was thinking to take that incentive out, so full size servos and larger batteries, etc. could be used. With the idea of broadened appeal for casual/newbie fliers. Maybe i'm wrong and it makes no sense- with the .15s, 1/4 or 1/2 pound makes a difference, with these engines, maybe much less so.
I only feel some comparisons should be made. I reacted strongly when I perceived that someone didn't like it cuz they like 3 pound planes. SOrry, it must be one of those red-circle days on my monthly calendar. I just don't much like edicts.
As to the 10x4/10x3, sorry, but i do not perceive a compromise has been reached. The nearest I see is the suggestion to allow both. That strikes me as a non-compromise, as folks who use the 10x3 will still have a slight performance advantage, based on testing to date. So we have a de-facto 10x3APC standard. The idea of the 10x4 mandate is to equalize everything. If by Y'all, you mean virtually the rest of the RCCA and not just me, I agree with you that we all find APCs more fragile than MAs. Seems pretty hard to dispute.
I'll try to get some sleep and be less grumpy in the morning.
Scott Gilkey
IN hindsight, I should not have assumed he spoke for you, though you spoke for yourself in stating in the next post "but I won't support moving the weight limit up beyond 3 lbs." Sounds pretty no-go to me.
I think the reasons for a 3.5# lower limit are pretty self-evident as we have all thrashed the concept of weight minimums to death for SSC so we know what they accomplish (at least in theory). What I thought I did not hear was a rational reason for why 3.0# was so inviolable, other than you guys didn't like to add weight to your planes. Maybe I misunderstood your post, but it seemed to me you said that your 3 1/4 pound planes performed as well as the 3.0 pounders. So why the resistance to add some ballast?
Maybe I am thinking about this wrong. I am thinking that with a 3 pound minimum, and Doc's wing area suggestions, which will still allow for some pretty large wings, that folks will still need to use mini gear, tiny batteries, etc. to try to make the weight minimum, as it seems logical that folks will strive for that. I was thinking to take that incentive out, so full size servos and larger batteries, etc. could be used. With the idea of broadened appeal for casual/newbie fliers. Maybe i'm wrong and it makes no sense- with the .15s, 1/4 or 1/2 pound makes a difference, with these engines, maybe much less so.
I only feel some comparisons should be made. I reacted strongly when I perceived that someone didn't like it cuz they like 3 pound planes. SOrry, it must be one of those red-circle days on my monthly calendar. I just don't much like edicts.
As to the 10x4/10x3, sorry, but i do not perceive a compromise has been reached. The nearest I see is the suggestion to allow both. That strikes me as a non-compromise, as folks who use the 10x3 will still have a slight performance advantage, based on testing to date. So we have a de-facto 10x3APC standard. The idea of the 10x4 mandate is to equalize everything. If by Y'all, you mean virtually the rest of the RCCA and not just me, I agree with you that we all find APCs more fragile than MAs. Seems pretty hard to dispute.
I'll try to get some sleep and be less grumpy in the morning.
Scott Gilkey
-
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am
Scott,
You're absolutely correct in your assessment of what I mentioned in my previous post. I do feel as though it is unnecessary from a standpoint that most planes right now that you're gonna see in a Limited B contest will exceed 3 lbs easily. Most kits are designed to accept full size gear and come in around 3.25 lbs or a little more. My primary arguement against starting at 3.5 lbs is that in the beginning of an airframes life 3.5 lbs is easy to stay close to but as you bang things up and repair that weight starts creeping up there around 4 lbs and then to me you'll see performance suffer. My mind is right now 3.5 lbs is to high but that does not mean I will not give it some thoughtful consideration. I was totally against wing specs but now realize that while I'd like to not see them they are probably necessary for this particular class. The APC prop issue is one that you will probably not change my mind on, but that doesn't mean that I won't graciously bow down and accept the MA as the prop of choice. We're hoping to do some serious flying this weekend so I'll have plenty of time to think about the weight issue and come to a conclusion for myself as to whether or not I can go along with a higher weight limit...
You're absolutely correct in your assessment of what I mentioned in my previous post. I do feel as though it is unnecessary from a standpoint that most planes right now that you're gonna see in a Limited B contest will exceed 3 lbs easily. Most kits are designed to accept full size gear and come in around 3.25 lbs or a little more. My primary arguement against starting at 3.5 lbs is that in the beginning of an airframes life 3.5 lbs is easy to stay close to but as you bang things up and repair that weight starts creeping up there around 4 lbs and then to me you'll see performance suffer. My mind is right now 3.5 lbs is to high but that does not mean I will not give it some thoughtful consideration. I was totally against wing specs but now realize that while I'd like to not see them they are probably necessary for this particular class. The APC prop issue is one that you will probably not change my mind on, but that doesn't mean that I won't graciously bow down and accept the MA as the prop of choice. We're hoping to do some serious flying this weekend so I'll have plenty of time to think about the weight issue and come to a conclusion for myself as to whether or not I can go along with a higher weight limit...
Scott just because Limited-B may not turn out the way I wanted it doesn't mean a thing. I want Limited-B to be an RCCA class, not a Jimbo/Travis-Class. I think it would be a great idea if you,Mike and Tim would get together though emails or here and vote to make all the changes necessary to make it a class that will work. A Limited-B class was a great idea two years ago and it's an even better one now. Mike,Tim and Yourself have been the biggest supporters so I think you guys should be the ones to make the proper abjustments. Travis and I will continue to post our findings. We will have a demo tomorrow if the rain holds off.The only advice I would give you is to not make any hard changes until 1-1-05
Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
At a meeting I attended the other day the speaker started out with this story...
<i>On the fist day of a time management seminar the speaker set a large glass jar in front of the group and proceeded to put in a stone from a pile of stones on the table. He carefully placed the stones into the jar fitting them one against the other so as to fill every space as efficiently as possible. After placing the last stone that could possibly fit in the jar he asked the group, “Is the jar full?â€
<i>On the fist day of a time management seminar the speaker set a large glass jar in front of the group and proceeded to put in a stone from a pile of stones on the table. He carefully placed the stones into the jar fitting them one against the other so as to fill every space as efficiently as possible. After placing the last stone that could possibly fit in the jar he asked the group, “Is the jar full?â€
-
- Posts: 213
- Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2002 8:41 am
- Location: Village Mills
- Contact:
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">you could mix the large stones, gravel, sand,and water, making it cement, then fill up the jar, no?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Grun,
Just don't increase displacement and you'll be ok...
[:)]
Grun,
Just don't increase displacement and you'll be ok...
[:)]
I hear people saying we could use full size,cheap servos if the minimum was 3.25 pounds. If you want to attract new people, the idea of cheaper servos sound much more attractive along with cheap stock engines like in SSC. So here is a great big stone to put in the jar. Standard size servo's required! Don't we all have a box of them in the workshop that we stopped using when we went to mini servos? Just my $.02 on the previous coments.
Bob Loescher
Lima Ohio
Bob Loescher
Lima Ohio
-
- Posts: 479
- Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am
I did a lot of thinking about the weight limit today while at LARKS field flying another demo for the Limited B concept. While I would like to see a lower limit I can see going with 3.25 pounds as a minimum weight. The reason I'd like to keep it below 3.5 pounds is becuase in my mind this should remain a class with cross over potential to Open B. If you put the limit at 3.5 pounds then we're back to the SSC to Open A issue of limits right on top of each other. At 3.25 pounds that should allow the use of full size gear if the builder so chooses but I don't feel that full size servos or gear of any kind should be mandated. I'm not sure if this is enough to be considered meeting ya'll half way but these are my honest thoughts on the wieght issue....
All of our planes- SSC and Open B are running full-size by-the-dozen tower servos and our Open B planes are coming in around 3 lbs 2-4 oz. with 64" high load 40 ripstop wings and 250 ma NiCads. I can live with 3.25- I know you can build a tough, great flying, 64" plane with full size gear at that weight. I also like the easier transfer to Open B. I don't want to put stones in my plane!
If you set the minimum weight so full size gear will work I don't think we need to mandate it. I think it's a bigger deal with SSC because a 2.5 lb plane is a big advantage- but at 3.25 with a .25- if you want to trade the weight savings found with mini servos for more armor I have no problem with it.
It's good to hear more ideas- thanks Boiler. Any other thoughts on full size servos?
If you set the minimum weight so full size gear will work I don't think we need to mandate it. I think it's a bigger deal with SSC because a 2.5 lb plane is a big advantage- but at 3.25 with a .25- if you want to trade the weight savings found with mini servos for more armor I have no problem with it.
It's good to hear more ideas- thanks Boiler. Any other thoughts on full size servos?