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

marasmus
Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 11:17 pm

Post by marasmus »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> ImageImageImageImage<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

Just for the record, one of the reasons we chose 3.25 pounds as the minimum for single engine 2548 planes was to allow the potential for crossover planes with 2610 (3.5 pounds max).

Ed

Image
Ed Kettler
RCCA 533
AMA 730493
Plano, TX
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

I can live with 3.25#. It should allow the use of full size gear and still be competative. As Tim stated some guys will use mini gear and put that weight into armor but that shouldn't be a big problem and you will have good crossover to Open B.

My personal goal would to be to build the plane below the minimum and have to add some ballast which could be removed as repair weight starts building up!
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

I could live with 3.25 also.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
slam
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:14 pm
Location: USA

Post by slam »

if you are trying for the newby....and make it easy for him to get into a combat plane, i think full size servos should be required. he is already buying a .25 motor and probably small reciever, another $60 in servos is scary (he probably already has the full size....as we all do).

i think if you leave the option open the trend will be for minis. just another rock in the jar in my opinion.

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

Post by Jimbo »

I always use both on my planes. Sometimes it's a small one on the throttle other times a standard with small on the other controlls. If someone wants to trade servo weight for armor I think thats a good thing. After all this is not a spec class. It was intended to be an easy cross to OpenB.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Bad Dawg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:27 pm
Location: Solomon Islands

Post by Bad Dawg »

In the past I have been against weight minimums because heavier planes don't fly as well and hit harder when they hit. The points made by Hat Trick (reserve weight for repairs, , not worryiong about weight while building) Boilers idea about using cheaper servos and BC's idea that the planes can cross over to open B with a prop and muffler change have convinced me. A long held idea has fallen by the way side due to the weight of good arguement. I blush[:I]

NUNC AUT NUNQUAM
Mark V.
The perpetual 'newbie'
crashhappy
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2004 4:50 pm
Location: USA

Post by crashhappy »

i see nothing wrong with the oringinal rules set, 3lb min. 25 to 28 engine range. if it is leagle for open b its fine for limited b.from some one who is just getting to combat im not ready for the speeds of open b. i think keep the motors stock works great. i have flown 2 demos with travis & jim & the stock fx25 on a slasher works pretty well. lets keep it simple. the key to limited b is to draw people in to the sport of combat. if limited b fails looks like be limited to club combat

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

Post by Jimbo »

Hey Tony take a look at RCHangout.com and post a pick of your SpecB flat bat plane if you can. It's in the combat forum.
We need to work on that class a little bit next weekend in between the Limited-B. We should have two others there with SpecB planes. We can fire up the grill too if you want.I'll see if I can get the guys from Beaumont and Lafayette to come down also. The weather should be cool this coming weekend.

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

Post by sgilkey »

Folks, I have not been on the forums since Friday, having a very busy and enjoyable weekend. I hope everybody had a nice holiday. Before I even bother to read what has been posted in the last few days, I want to apologize for my tantrum in last Friday's posts about the weight minimum. Some inane posts on other areas of the forum really set me off, and I let my frustration boil over to my posts on this thread. Not cool, I should have just signed off and taken a break for a day. So apologies to Jimbo and Travis and all the rest who had the misfortune to be exposed to my poor manners.

I believe that Jimbo and Travis, who are doing the lion's share of work in developing and promoting Limited B, have the prerogative as to establishing the proposed rules, and those of us who suggest changes need to make compelling arguments for them. In my case, I have been pulling for 10x4MA and 3.5# weight min. As for 10x4MA, I have stated my case on this and won't revisit it. As to 3.5# weight min, I thought the reasons for weight min were clear, due to their application in SSC, but I see I did not make a clear case why 3.5# is better than 3.0#. Dr. Evil followed up with a good post that I cannot improve upon, thanks Doc. I guess my basic rationale was that, at the levels of thrust and wing area we are looking at for this class, it seems we should have a higher minimum than only 8 oz over SSC. But I admit I cannot prove that it makes sense, I only think it. In my mind I saw it as a suggestion that could be tried.

Maybe we compromise at 3.25#, maybe it stays at 3.0, or goes to 3.5. Maybe we go to 10x4MA, or stay with 10x3APC. All I can say is, even if we keep APC and 3.0#, I think this class is going to be a great deal of fun, and the basic idea is sound- these are relatively minor tweaks. Thanks to Jimbo and Travis for pushing the concept to front and center, where we can all see if it has enough merit to become a full-fledged provisional class.

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

Post by Jimbo »

Thanks Scott, your help has been invaluable. I would only say that we don't need to rush into making rules that are etched in stone just yet. I would also advise everyone who wants to fly this class NOT to build a fleet of planes specifically for it.For now one or two would be plenty.My thanks to everyone that is helping with or promoting Limited-B.[:D]

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Feathers
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: USA

Post by Feathers »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'll try to get some sleep and be less grumpy in the morning.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This has got to be one of the best quotes of the year. I've got the same problem at times Scott. We need something like those breathalyzers they put in the cars of folks that have trouble with drinking. We need keyboards with finger sensors that won't let us type until we've calmed down a little.

Glad you had a great weekend.
slam
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:14 pm
Location: USA

Post by slam »

i looked back for the suggestions on limiting wing area. all i could find was hat trick's suggestion of a total cord measurement of 19" (i may not have read it correctly).

i think this is not enough. a 48" wing could only have a 9" constant cord and would result in less than 500 sq".

perhaps a better criteria would be max wing area. he lower the wing area the closer you will be to the magical non furballing class.

i am still not against specific wing measurements.

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

Post by Jimbo »

Did you see the part about the max wing span too? I didn't go back and look but I think it's there somewhere.There has been so many suggestion I don't know where they all are.[:0]

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
slam
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:14 pm
Location: USA

Post by slam »

i forgot about the 64" max.

with those two maximums in place (64" max span, and 18" max cord combined) you have a spec wing!

i was hoping for maybe a 48" spec wing because i think it would be more durable but a 64" spec wing is o.k.

the reason it will be a spec wing is because you will only have two choices to be competive in the class. you can fly a 64" with 11"root cord-8" tip cord (or some other taper that equals 18") or you can run a 64" span with a constant cord of 9". either way to be competive you would have to have a 64" wing. any other wingspan would be giving up square inches which is undesirable in todays thinking.

a 64" wing with a 9" cord is 576"sq. a 48" wing is 432"sq. that is a huge difference.

that would also eliminate any rudder planes from the class (may not be a bad thing if you are trying to get a pursuit class), most rudder planes run a 48" wing with a 11" constant cord.

again i suggest a square inch max, it will be harder to qualify at tech inspection (you might need a calculator) but it would encompass more existing planes or would be able to be lowered to a pursuit wing loading.

just my .02 i won't beat this opinion of mine to death, just throw it out and see what happens.

btw i love the limited b concept. i appreciate everyones hard work to test it.

slam
steve (i'm sick or hurricanes in orlando) lamson
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”