Corrections to the fighter list

Tinman · Post by **Tinman** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 1:19 am

What is the proper proceedure to get the approved design list changed?

I'm not talking about changing the scope of the list to get something other than fighters (like attack aircraft) listed, I'm talking about the addition of fighters that fit all the present requirements for 2548 but for some reason don't seem to be on the approved list.

Just a couple of examples, both the Heinkel He-112 (not the "He-100" or "He-113") and the Curtiss CW-21 export fighter, meet all the design, service, time period, kills, and numeric requirements for 2548 but they haven't been included. And the Seversky P-35, contemporary on the Curtiss P-36 which did make the list, shouldn't it have been included?

Ed Kettler · Post by **Ed Kettler** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:13 am

Greg,

Those planes did make the "any possible airplane that met the 2548 criteria" list, but we pared it down to a more manageable list of planes. Changes to the list are treated like rules changes in the PnP, once the rules become official. In the near term, you can submit a list in this forum and try to drum up support, and then the 2548 rules team will look at them and make a decision.

Tinman · Post by **Tinman** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 2:25 pm

So you have aircraft that fit the rules but don't get included to make the list more manageable? I don't quite understand how deleting about a half a dozen planes on a list of 71 makes it more managable.
It looks more like the Avia B-534 and He-112 in the European theater and the P-35, P-43, P-66, and the CW-21 in the China-Burma theater were just forgotten. One shouldn't have to "drum up support" for design that meet the rules, should they?

Post by **Dane McGee** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 7:33 pm

Greg, Surely someone wanting to build a 2548 warbird can find a plane to build from numerous planes on the current list?!?!

I'm really not sure why you are trying to add planes to the list....... There are plenty of planes to choose from already.
For goodness sakes man just find a plane and get to building if you want to fly 2548, then bring it to Paris and I'll be happy to take your streamer.

Tinman · Post by **Tinman** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 8:51 pm

Max:

Who said I wanted to add more planes? I just asked how changes to the approved list are made so people can do it without drawing the unfair flak like Serg's suggestion of the IL-2 got.

I mentioned those half dozen designs only because they did meet all the "criteria" in the rules. But I'm still not buying the "more managable" story, I think they just got forgot them.

By the way, I am planning on coming to Paris, so you need to remember to bring bunches of streamers. If you don't need them, I sure as heck will, because Paris is a madhouse and I wouldn't have it any other way. Like I say, there is nothing like Paris in the springtime.

THend · Post by **THend** » Sat Jan 22, 2005 11:07 pm

The best part of all is that once we all have a 48 inch wingspan limit, why have a list? Why not allow the oddballs? Not like they would "take over the world", since all wingspans would be equal. Just a thought.

Ed Kettler · Post by **Ed Kettler** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 1:09 am

Greg,

Please refer to this section of the 2548 Rules (Provisional):
3.1.5 Changes to the Approved Aircraft List (Rules Appendix A). 
Changes to the Approved Aircraft List contained in Appendix A of these rules shall follow the prescribed procedures in the RCCA Protocols and Procedures (PnP). The proposed aircraft addition/deletion shall document the justification relative to Appendix A.3 Selection Criteria of these rules. Proposed changes not meeting the spirit and intent of section 1.0 Objective or the more detailed requirements in section Appendix A.3 shall be rejected. The RCCA Board, with input from the Technical Committee and the 2548 Rules Committee, shall approve all changes to the Approved Aircraft List.

There is a rules change procedure in the PnP, and this is how the Approved Planes List gets changed. You will have to drum up support within the Technical Committee and the Board in order to get the change approved.

There has been a change in the PnP recently that has to be reflected in the 2548 rules in the next revision: the Technical Committee has been combined with the Rules Committee to become the Rules Committee.

Not everyone agrees with the need for a list, or with the planes on the list. The provisional rules process lets us evaluate the rules through operational testing at events in order to work out the bugs before they become official.

Regards,
Ed

Tinman · Post by **Tinman** » Sun Jan 23, 2005 9:10 am

Ed:

Thanks again. As time passes you may find that people might want a better definition of what "not meeting the spirt" means. It looked like Serg's IL-2 suggestion was meeting the spirt in some peoples eyes.

Serg · Post by **Serg** » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:38 am

Bottom line 1 is: Changing in provisional rules can be done much easer than changing in official rules.
Bottom line 2: Technical standards 2548 dos not required any approval list (except benign in service).
Bottom line 3: Creating artificial rules you losing a people and losing you authority.

Tinman · Post by **Tinman** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:15 pm

Ed: Thanks for the info. I've downloaded and printed a copy of the RCCA Protocol and Procedures (PnP) and read it. For any aircraft that I (or anyone else for that matter) would want to add to the list we would fill out the Rules Change Proposal Form (Page 10 of 18) get the 3 signatures of current RCCA members (including at least one CD) and forward it to the area representitive for consideration. From that point on the area representitive is responceable for following through with all communications protocol. Correct?

Ed Kettler · Post by **Ed Kettler** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:50 pm

That is correct, Greg. We will collect the submittals and review them after the NATS. At this time we are also considering some of the following:

1. Reducing the RPMs to 15.0K
2. Reducing the RPMs to 14.5K
3. Thinning the list by increasing the required number of planes that were produced of the given type
4. Thinning the list by removing the 'fighter bomber' types as allowable planes
5. Thinning the list by removing the biplanes
6. Going to fully functional RC engines
7. Increasing the list by allowing some additional fighter types that are lesser known but still significant, such as the ones you suggested.

We will be issuing a clarification for electrics so that they can continue to be developed. This is a rapidly emerging area of development, and I am amazed at the progress being made in this technology.

We are also trying to rationalize the engine rules between SSC, 2548 and Limited B to avoid confusion and reduce the burden on the CDs and pilots.

Regards,
Ed

Ed Kettler · Post by **Ed Kettler** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:22 pm

Greg,

After some digging I did find this list of planes that were reviewed back in May 2004:

Single Engine
Commonwealth CA-12 Boomerang, Australia
Avia B.524, Bohemia-Moravia
Avia AV-135, Bulgaria
P-43A Lancer, China
Vultee P-66 Vanguard, China
Blackburn Roc, Commonwealth
Bolton Paul Defiant, Commonwealth
Gloster Gladiator, Commonwealth
Supermarine Seafire, Commonwealth
VL Mersky II, Finland
Fokker D.XXI, Finland, Netherlands
Caudron C.714, France
MB-155, France
He-112B, Germany
Fiat CR.32, Italy
Fiat CR.42 Falco, Italy
Regianne Re.2005 Sagittario, Italy
Kawasaki Ki.100, Japan
Mitsubishi A5M (Claude), Japan
Nakajima Ki.27 (Nate), Japan
Curtis-Wright CW-21 Demon, Netherlands
Koolhoven FK58, Netherlands
PZL P.11, Poland
PZL P.24, Poland
IAR 80, Rumania
Polikarpov I-15, Russia
Polikarpov I-153, Russia
P-35A, US
Rogozarski IK-3, Yugoslavia

Multi-Engine
Bristol Blenheim IF/IVF, Commonwealth
Potez 631, France
Dornier Do-17Z, Germany
Ju-388J, Germany
Fiat CR.25BIS, Italy
IMAM Ro.57, Italy
Kawasaki Ki.102 (Randy), Japan
Fokker G.I, Netherlands

The italicized planes made the list. Some of the planes were cut because they did not meet the criteria because too few were produced or they did not get into full production. We also had some lively discussion of "what the heck is a Koolhoven" or "VL Mersky???".

The list is one of those areas in the rules where there are very polarized opinions:
1. "We don't need a list. The 48" rule equalizes everything"
2. "The list is too long. There only needs to be 15-20 planes"
3. "The list is too short. You left off X, Y and Z"
4. "What about the &*&*&*? One pilot shot down 12 planes flying it, so it should be on the list."
5. etc., etc.

The list helps the builders, manufacturers, pilots and CDs understand what is allowable. The list, as written, is not cast in stone. We have a couple of years in front of us for the Provisional process and the AMA rules cycle.

Warmest regards,
Ed

Serg · Post by **Serg** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:08 am

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The list helps the builders, manufacturers, pilots and CDs understand what is allowable
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
This statement is absolutely wrong.
All Manufacturers first of all asking not approval list, but clear definition what is allowed? (Some measurable parameter what deviation is legal).

So far in rules << as close to scale as possible>> home made models have advantage:
(Building one-twoâ€“five models from scratch anybody can make bigger deviation and get better flying properties. But one negative reply about too big deviation in manufacturers product will kill any project).

Basic idea of 2548 is to provide equal flying parameters for different prototypes, but not creating artificial restrictions.

THend · Post by **THend** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:18 am

Good point Serg, the SureFlite kit I am trying to make into a P40 is WAY off scale proportions for a 48 inch wing. I pulled up a 3 view in CAD, sized accordingly, and got to measuring what I have on the bench vs what is on the computer. I am in a bit of a muck at the moment, as I am going to have to bash the kit extensively to get it into spec. Now, if looks are all we are going on, I can make it look kinda right without too much hassle. But anyone who knows the lines of the P40 could cry foul at a contest, and I'd have to fess up with the docs.

I am certainly one of the few who feel that if we have a 48 inch wingspan then the playing field is rather level. You can't strech 48 inches can you? If your wingspan is 48 inches and the other guys is 48 inches, where is the beef regarding whether the plane was actually front line, or prototype?

The list is not a bad idea, but it must be held true to the qualifying statements of why 2548 came to be in the first place, or it is a slap in the face to anyone who sways from the frontline fighters. ie, the Boomerang,and other planes that nobody really knows of without using a book to look them up.

I think that there are a few who really are into History, and game/role playing that simulate history to a deree of accuracy that is lost upon most of us. A 48 inch rule would make a great common denominator that we can all live with.

Yeah 2005! The year of the P47N!!!LOL

Ed Kettler · Post by **Ed Kettler** » Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:04 am

Terry,

The comments about thinning down the list by increasing the numbers required, etc. are to get back to the more front-line/high production volume fighters. The Boomerang was actually used as a bomber interceptor until replaced by other fighters. Some of the lesser known planes fought in the lesser known battles by the smaller combatants, far from the reporters. In other cases, their combat use was severely curtailed by the relatively short combat period (e.g. France, Poland, Netherlands) before their countries were overrun or the planes destroyed.

If I read this statement correctly:<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The list is not a bad idea, but it must be held true to the qualifying statements of why 2548 came to be in the first place, or it is a slap in the face to anyone who sways from the frontline fighters. ie, the Boomerang,and other planes that nobody really knows of without using a book to look them up.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
it appears that you want the list cut back to the widely recognized fighters. But your next comment appears to state there should not be a list: <blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">A 48 inch rule would make a great common denominator that we can all live with.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">So which way do you want it?[:D]

I hope you have fully recovered from your surgery and you are back to flying!

Regards,
Ed