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

David
Posts: 309
Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 10:09 pm
Location: USA

Post by David »

Questions from a "B wannabe" perspective; help me out here...

When I wanted to get into Open B combat two years ago, folks said; "SPAD Dogfighter or Flatbat" so I built two. Then nobody wanted to fly B locally, and SSC started.

Now I'm flying SSC and have gone from SPAD HORs, to BattleFloyds, to SMACKS, and love the SMACKS, but there's a new "A" class, and guys are adapting SSC ships to fly it. How can I adapt SSC to fly the A without ruining the ship for SSC?

There's also 2548, Scale, and a variation of some of the above. I want to try B, but if I load up on Lee's SMACKs or Cobras for B, am I stuck with an Open B design or is it adaptable (realistically and reasonably) from Open B to Limited B and back? Or am I looking at having to buy several ships for each, just in case the wind blows one way or the other on each class?

In my limited understanding of what's going on, I'm going to have to buy at least three planes for Open B, Limited B, SSC, and A. While I would have a WOOHOO! kind of time, my wife would not share my excitement at the bank loan needed just to fly each of the current popular classes.

Am I missing something? Can someone set me straight? I don't know what to tell the new combat students at the club, while we teach with .25 sized SPAD HORs, as to what to buy for competition.

Blue skies,

DL
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

David,
This is just my own humble opinion. If you look at the number of pilots entered into meets in the area you are willing to travel to, I would try to build for the proven big draws so far in your area. As for open A and 2548, the draw is unknown and will probally vary by location as does the other classes. I personally prefer to build from scratch rather than from kits which saves $ but requires time. I've built a good number of kits when I was pressed for time or wanted a starting point when I first entered combat. Every pilot's situation is different so what I do would not necessarly apply to anyone else. I've entered the most popular events first to get in more flight time and learn to be a better competetor and have more fun time. I am able and willing to travel more than most pilots since I am semi-retired and will soon be fully retired.
wparmenter
Posts: 597
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 9:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by wparmenter »

Yup, what Boiler said. Here in Kansas City, open 'c' is what we can get local flyers to attend. I can still fly open 'b' ships in 'c' so I fly b ships in c and still get to play with everybody. Determine what you are willing to travel to, and build accordingly.
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

My two cents are, everything looks good, except:

prefer 10x4MA to 10x3APC due to breakage and cost issue. Must limit prop to one type per SSC, so everyone is equalized for performance, no revups or other obscure prop. 15.5k+10x4 spec prop= set limitiation on speed/thrust potential, and avoids search for "magic" props

I support the 64 inch span rule and like the proposed sum-of-chords proposal, but could go for a max wing area too so that the guys who like 48" spans, etc can up-chord to get the area they want

I wish the engine rule would go up to .29 so i can use my Supertigre .29s but i'm probably the only guy who cares about that. but i don't see the harm in going up to .29, there's no .29 out there that will be at all competitive other than the ST and it is no stronger than an OS 25 or 28. SO this is just a "why not" as i don't see the harm, but really it's no big deal to me.

Like tach provisions per ssc
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

OK, I don't see why we can't go to .29, with the prop limit in place it doesn't matter. Sounds good to me Scott.
I am in favor of a two prop rule however, MA10x4 and APC10x3. I have never run master airscrew props on my combat planes because I find them to be a waist of RPM's and engine wear. The APC we NOT give anyone a winning advantage anymore than the difference between Travis's OS spinning 15.2K and my Irvine topping out at 14.7K It just doesn't make enough difference to conceder, after all, this is Limited-B not SpecB.
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Jimbo and I will finalize the rules draft this weekend for submission to Lou and the exec committee Monday morning. I had intended to do it earlier but it seemed like folks were still thinking on the issue and I was away from home for training all this week.

There is one idea I would like to pose here that was offered to me last weekend at the Jetero Joust. Someone suggested adding a statement to the rules that would allow SSC aircraft to also participate in Limited B. The statement would read something to the effect of "aircraft that are SSC legal will be allowed to fly given they meet the 5 commandments" given that is paraphrased but you get the idea. SSC planes are flown in Open B routinely and this would open the door to get more folks to try the Limited B idea. One thing observed this last weekend during our Friday Limited B demo rounds was that the speeds were very similar to that of SSC. Again this is a valid idea another pilot offered so I'd like some input please...

One last thing, Jimbo and I are leaning more towards a total wing area limitation in sq inches. I'd like some suggestions for that as well, thanks...
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

Sounds good Jimbo! I don't see why SSC planes couldn't fly.

Wing area specs

48" span would get root and tip chord total of 24"

50" span get 23"

52" span 22"

54" span 21"

56" span 20.5"

58" span 20"

60" span 19"

62" span 18.5

64" span 18.0

All would have about 576 square inches of wing area. I did round off the numbers a bit
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Sounds good to me Mike.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

I like the idea of letting SSC legal planes fly in limited B. The speeds will be about the same. It would get my vote.
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

I'm OK with letting SSC planes fly with Limited-B but I don't think they are close in speeds.However SSC planes do turn tighter and that may be the equalizer that would allow them to be competitive in Limited-B.
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

Letting SSC planes fly in LimB is fine with me but we need to specifically specify that they meet all SSC rules- since the limB prop/rpm limit will not apply, we can't have .15-powered planes that are not bound by the 8x3/17.5k limit of SSC. In other words, no SSC planes with screaming Cyclons or some such. Also, if we go with a wing area rule, that is fine but a span limit of 64 is still in effect, right?
BigCountry
Posts: 479
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 12:14 am

Post by BigCountry »

Scott,

I intend to keep the span limit rule but would like to go up to 68" only because I'd like to allow the Lanier ships to get in the class. I'm not trying to stretch things it's just that the Lanier is one of the most available kits out there and I'd hate to knock them out of contention right out of the gate. My thoughts are 68" and 600 sq inches. I hope to post the final rules tonight (I know I said they'd be in Lou's hands today but things happen).

Also, the SSC statement will indicate that the five commandments of SSC have to be followed in order for a SSC plane to legally fly in Limited B with the understanding that any points accumulated will go towards Limited B (this should go without saying obviously)...
Hat Trick
Posts: 1540
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2001 6:58 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Hat Trick »

If you go up to 68" then the standard will be 68".

64" works great in a 4 x 8 sheet of foam and is plenty big enough. The lanier 68" kits wouldn't be knocked out. I think everybody has a saw!
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

Hat's right. If you don't have a band saw, a coping saw or hack saw will work fine.[;)]
sgilkey
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2001 8:26 am

Post by sgilkey »

To be self-serving, I like 68 as then all i have to do is lop 2" off the tips of my current B ships and they are legal! But my gut (nothing really rational, only my gut) says we should keep the limit at 64. If they like the Lanier kit they can saw off the tips.
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”