Limited B rules final draft

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

Moderator: hbartel

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

Limited B rules final draft

Post by BigCountry »

The PnP criteria has been met so it's time to submit the final draft of the Limited B rules proposal. Here is a quick rehash of the rules as they sit right now:

Proposed rules for a Limited B class (proposed provisional class), originated July 26, 2004 for the remainder of the 2004 contest season.

1. With the exception of the following requirements, all RCCA B-Class rules and scoring will be used.

2. Engine: Stock up to .28 cid engine. The engine and carburetor must not be altered from factory or stock condition. Only modifications listed below will be allowed. Engines used must be classified by the manufacturer for use in flying R/C Aircraft. The engine must be complete with the stock carburetor free of modification as well as a muffler that is cataloged for use with that motor by the manufacturer. The carburetor must be fully functional via servo operation and capable of performing as intended.

<b>Allowed engine changes:</b>

a.Any or all external engine bolts may be exchanged for bolts that are either of better quality or cheaper cost.
b.Any “stockâ€
Web-Pilot
Posts: 846
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 11:16 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Web-Pilot »

Travis,

Need some clarification here. I think I understand the concept, but this sentence does not make a whole lot of sense.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">a.The CD or their designated technical inspector will test each competitors engines for maximum RPM level prior to the beginning of the event, each time a competitor must go to an airplane that is untested and then randomly throughout the course of the event. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I think you are trying to say that if a competitor changes planes during the contest, it must also be RPM checked before being allowed to fly the first time, and that there may be random checks on on any competitors airplane at any time during the contest.

George


George Kerr
Web-Pilot
Image
AMA 4362
RCCA 580
www.milehirc.com/Combat/
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Hey George,

You're correct, sometimes my grammar and sentence sturcture isn't always the best. The purpose of that particular rule is so that competitors know that each airplane flown will be checked prior to ever being allowed to fly and may be checked again at random during the event. Thanks for the question...

Travis

Image
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

IMO, carb barrel must be full open for test.

APCs just break way too easy for our field / landing area.

Please clarify weight is to be between #3.0 and #3.5 or is the intent to let heavy planes fly at their own demise?

Other than that I think this will really help out novice combat pilots as it really slows things down a lot up here in CO.

One last thought. How about Rev-Up or TopFlite wood props. they are more durable than APC (less than MAS) and we might be able to find a 9.5 x 4 that reduces speed while keeping the engines running well without overheating.

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

Post by BigCountry »

JJ,

Thanks for your comments. To help clarify your weight question, we will only specify a minimum weight as is done with SSC. If someone wants to build a heavier plane that is their choice. As far as the props go while I don't like the MA 10x4 we may go that way to help folks who lose a lot of props. As far as getting outside of a 10x3 or 10x4 MA I don't know that we'll open it up that much. It will probably come down to one of those two props. We are hoping to keep our rules as much inline with 2548 and SSC as possible. Right now 2548 only specifies a 10x3 prop not a make. Unfortunately the 10x3 MA is total junk and not a viable option that leaves you with APC, Rev-Up, TopFlite or Gruapner or others I haven't listed. This will be a tough decision for sure.

In regards to the carb barrel. In my opinion it needs to be fully open for the initial taching but given that SSC allows the use of ATV settings in the radio to meet RPM limits I'm thinking that Limited B should allow it also. Just in my opinion I don't know that the RPM limit in Limited B will be as readily reachable as it tends to be in SSC. I have a pretty strong 25fx with a 32sx carb on it and on it's best day it will get close but it's never broke out. That's not to say it can't/won't happen but I really don't feel as though it'll be as big of an issue as in SSC...

Thanks again for your comments
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

Up here at 5800' I don't think there will be any need to even bother taching the engines. I'll have to hunt down some other 10x3 or 10x4 props to try out.
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

I'm in favor of a 3.25# weight minimum and the MA 10x4 prop. I hate APC's! Always breaking off the dang tips!

3# is tough to get to with many of the common designs.

What happened to the wing area limitations? A absolute requirement in my book!!!!
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Travis, I agree with Hat about the wing area limitations. If you don`t use them, people who are willing to build huge, light wings will have a too much advantage in turning ability. I think the suggested dimentions were..... 64" span with the sum of the root and tip cord not to exceed 18". That gives an area of 576 squares.
You might just say a max of sya 600 squares or so, but that would make it a little more difficult to do tech inspection. A few squares here or there will not make any difference, but limiting the square inches and ultimatly the wing loading is important.
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

I agree fully with you both Lee. I guess I should have prefaced my original post a little better. My original post was simply a rehash or copy and paste of the original rules that were written in July. I put them up to refresh everyones memory and bring out some discussion on what needs to be included which I guess is working. What is there is not "the final" rules draft just to be clear. I do thank those that have voiced their thoughts....
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

Please post what you plan to submit. Then we'll have something to talk about!
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Well I guess here's a short list of what I plan to include, keep in mind most of the wording and what not will be prettied up but here is what we're thinking as far as the big issues:

1. 3.25 pound minimum weight
2. 15,500 RPM limit
3. 64" span limit with 18" root+tip wing area limitation(really would like to use a grandfather clause for one year here to allow folks to expend any current Open B planes that don't meet this criteria)
4. I would like to allow the pilots to choose either an APC 10x3 or MA 10x4. I know this one will bring up some issues so let's hear them for or against.

I would also like to know what the Limited B pilots think about staying inline with the taching rules just employed for SSC. That is taching prior to every launch by a judge. This is not how the rules are written now but there has been a lot of discussion about trying to stay consistent between classes in how we handle these sort of things so lets hear it, what do you think....

These are the big issues as I see them now and how Jim and I are looking to address them in the final draft of the rules that will go to the Exec Committee next week. Let's hear your thoughts and opinions now. We can always alter things in July but let's get it right now.

We cannont please everyone to the fullest extent but we can find middle ground with all this stuff....Thanks again for all your time...
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

Guess I'd go for 72" instead of 64 as I've just built a bunch of 72 inch wings and was hoping to just change mufflers and props to fly in this class. I don't think the extra 8 inches will make a big difference. Also keep the square to under 600. Just my opinion.

Perhaps just limit the prop to 10x3 or 10x4 but don't limit the manufacturer. That way if a rev up or even a wood prop works better for you you could use that. I think staying with the 10x3-4 alone and rpm limitation should make it reasonably even.
dgoetz692002
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:42 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by dgoetz692002 »

From what I have read here and in other forums on this site what it sounds like everyone is trying to create with this class is a one design style event. Limit this that and the other to make things a pilot contest not a technology race. So if what I said here is true maybe we should look at what other groups have done to create one design type events and the mistakes they made that let them turn into technology races. Slope soaring has a one design pylon event. RC pylon has a one design event I think it is (quicky 500). Giant scale racing has the texan class. What can we learn from each of these and others about what to do and what not to do.
Okay I have fire exstinguisher in hand so let 'er rip.
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

I like a wing area limit better. 600 sounds good to me. The 18" rule would eliminate most 48" wings which is all I fly, all of which are under 600 squares. The square inch rule is not too hard for SSC so why would it be too hard for limited-B?
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

A square inch rule would be ok although it would make it a bit tougher for the CD to figure out. A simple chart could be produced with the max root and tip chords for all spans between 48?" and 64" for the CD to refer to.

Keep the max span at 64" though.
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”