Ed:
Just a quick note, you better belive 2610 is "still around". A lot of scale flyers are going to want some "crossover" planes, designs in the 44 to 48 range, to be able to play in both without fully committing to one or the other till they see how things play out.
But the differences in the rules are good for some scale modelers becauce, quite frankly, 1/12 scale, even plus 10%, just wasn't big enought for certian designs. Like the tiny winged fighters of the VVS, (Yak-1, Lagg3, MiG3) or the Ki-44 "Tojo". GREAT designs, SUCKY in 1/12, but built at 48" you could make a Tojo work. If I build a 2548 it will probally be one of those planes that I wanted to build for 2610 but it just had to small of a wing. Or the Fiat G.50, but that's only becuase I got some great plans out of a British magizine that, if memory serves, were at 47.5" span. Open cockpit, Finnish markings, what more could you ask for?!
Corrections to the fighter list
Moderator: hbartel
-
Which_way_is_up
- Posts: 1637
- Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
- Location: Dallas, Texas
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by THend</i>
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You got to realize, I don't give up too easy either! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Best of times.
Harner
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What was our first clue?[:0] This subject has gone from being a dead horse. . . . . . to being unreconizable road kill. . . . . . . no. . .no . . . it's Terry coming to drive over that poor skunk AGAIN! [:D]
<br />. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
You got to realize, I don't give up too easy either! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Best of times.
Harner
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
What was our first clue?[:0] This subject has gone from being a dead horse. . . . . . to being unreconizable road kill. . . . . . . no. . .no . . . it's Terry coming to drive over that poor skunk AGAIN! [:D]
-
Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
The reason we eliminated the Me-163 and the jets was based on observation of the flight characteristics of Lee's Me-163 which was very slick with very light wing loading, and it would have been the Me-163 class very shortly. The other jets also had very light wing loadings and smooth aerodynamics, so we stuck to prop planes in order to keep the playing field reasonably level.
I'm hoping that we can have a growing and vibrant scale community that flies both classes: the fire breathing unlimited 2610s and the more restricted 2548. Scale about died in this area, and 2548 seems to have re-kindled the interest to the point where we will have multiple contests this year ... with 2610 we only had Paris. In other parts of the country, 2610 is going strong, which is great. 2610 is 2610, and we aren't going to change it. 2548 was designed to address the requests of those who were dissatisfied with parts of 2610, including limiting the planes to fighter planes that saw active combat squadron service. Were all those planes great? Heck no, some were real disasters! Others barely got into service before their country was overrun. Others only flew in limited numbers for China, Bohemia-Moravia, the Dutch East Indies or other obscure places.
I ask that everybody be patient and observe what happens in the mixed 2548/2610 contests this year so that we can evaluate changes from observed flight performance, rather than opinions. As Lord Kelvin once said "Without data all you have are opinions". Let's get some data. 2548 has come a long way in a short time because folks built planes that met the specs and flew them in front of their peers. Seeing is believing.
Now what plane is Terry building?
Ed
I'm hoping that we can have a growing and vibrant scale community that flies both classes: the fire breathing unlimited 2610s and the more restricted 2548. Scale about died in this area, and 2548 seems to have re-kindled the interest to the point where we will have multiple contests this year ... with 2610 we only had Paris. In other parts of the country, 2610 is going strong, which is great. 2610 is 2610, and we aren't going to change it. 2548 was designed to address the requests of those who were dissatisfied with parts of 2610, including limiting the planes to fighter planes that saw active combat squadron service. Were all those planes great? Heck no, some were real disasters! Others barely got into service before their country was overrun. Others only flew in limited numbers for China, Bohemia-Moravia, the Dutch East Indies or other obscure places.
I ask that everybody be patient and observe what happens in the mixed 2548/2610 contests this year so that we can evaluate changes from observed flight performance, rather than opinions. As Lord Kelvin once said "Without data all you have are opinions". Let's get some data. 2548 has come a long way in a short time because folks built planes that met the specs and flew them in front of their peers. Seeing is believing.
Now what plane is Terry building?
Ed
-
wparmenter
- Posts: 597
- Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2001 9:18 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Believe it or not, I was looking at the oddball without the canopy too!
Roy, say what you want, but NOBODY has been able to answer my primary question regarding why isn't 48 inches the same on significant frontline fighters and the oddballs?
Sure, I can see the issue with the Me163, which is why I suggest it be limited or something.
What I will push for, and continue to push for is a 2610 style class where you can scale up your favorite fronline fighter to 48 inch wingspan. The mufflers and props we can sort out too. Imagine, 2610 power, and your favorite frontline fighter finally having a fighting chance against the big bad oddballs? Yeah, that is what is needed.
Dead horse, dead horse, NAW! We will be flying these birds soon enough too! Then we'll have data too!
Good luck all, now I need to go look at that list again...
Roy, say what you want, but NOBODY has been able to answer my primary question regarding why isn't 48 inches the same on significant frontline fighters and the oddballs?
Sure, I can see the issue with the Me163, which is why I suggest it be limited or something.
What I will push for, and continue to push for is a 2610 style class where you can scale up your favorite fronline fighter to 48 inch wingspan. The mufflers and props we can sort out too. Imagine, 2610 power, and your favorite frontline fighter finally having a fighting chance against the big bad oddballs? Yeah, that is what is needed.
Dead horse, dead horse, NAW! We will be flying these birds soon enough too! Then we'll have data too!
Good luck all, now I need to go look at that list again...
-
Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Hopefully this doesn't get like some of the SCCA spec class racers where one car that starts to show an advantage all of a sudden gets penalized with a weight penalty. If it gets to that point or something similar I'll have to get on Terry's dead horse and start kicking it with some spurs and beating it with a whip!
I agree that without any hard data this is all pure speculation. So speculate we shall until we finally get a few rounds in over here in SoCal. What is it, 2 months till the unveiling of 2548?
I'll give ya data!
NAES
I agree that without any hard data this is all pure speculation. So speculate we shall until we finally get a few rounds in over here in SoCal. What is it, 2 months till the unveiling of 2548?
I'll give ya data!
NAES
List of oddballs would be whatever it is you are avoiding, or wishing to not see fly side by side with the common fighters I guess. You guys should know, you formed the class to get away from certain aircraft. It would be interesting to run the wing loading calcs, and see if it is that big of a deal.
My crystal ball is back and in good shape. I see the next few months here in So Cal being real interesting for Scale. Either way, we will be flying Scale, and ANY form of Scale combat is better than NO Scale combat.
It will all be very good.
th
My crystal ball is back and in good shape. I see the next few months here in So Cal being real interesting for Scale. Either way, we will be flying Scale, and ANY form of Scale combat is better than NO Scale combat.
It will all be very good.
th
-
Ed Kettler
- Posts: 3437
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
- Location: USA
- Contact:
Guys many of you telling: 2548 do not interfere with 2610.
<u><b>It is not true</b>.</u> Many of you already notice this. Very shortly everybody have to choose between classes.
In reality not many pilots will be able to keep enough models for serious competitive flying in both classes.
<font color="red">Therefore, new scale class ruin existing official scale class.</font id="red">
Personally I like the idea of standard parameters for sports models, but I hate current 2548 rules because of artificial differentiation fighters/not fighters.
Just think: bomber/fighters is allowed, but attackers not allowed!
(About half of all frontline aircraft was attackers, but who care…! We are creating new class especially for SIG…)
Now 60 years since WWII. In 20-30 year only books pictures and models will remind how it was in reality.
My question is: How you going explain for future generation so dramatic elimination of certain existing prototype form sport contest?
Under standard wingspan all single engine prototypes will have approximately similar flying abilities.
Who in RCCA really care if certain (likely very small) population of pilots will fly for example diver bombers during contest? Rules sad: this is a game. (More diversity = more fun and more history).
Sorry for too many emotions, but I am a scale guy who grown up with certain favorite prototype and your rules not allowed me to fly official scale contest.
In addition: I believe it is not bad idea to correct somehow 2610 rules (allow changing scale for massive fighters WWII up to certain size (48’’)
As experiment: Let allow bigger scale WWII fighters fly during 2610 events!?
If it will work in three years: No needs in new <b>separate class</b> .
<u><b>It is not true</b>.</u> Many of you already notice this. Very shortly everybody have to choose between classes.
In reality not many pilots will be able to keep enough models for serious competitive flying in both classes.
<font color="red">Therefore, new scale class ruin existing official scale class.</font id="red">
Personally I like the idea of standard parameters for sports models, but I hate current 2548 rules because of artificial differentiation fighters/not fighters.
Just think: bomber/fighters is allowed, but attackers not allowed!
(About half of all frontline aircraft was attackers, but who care…! We are creating new class especially for SIG…)
Now 60 years since WWII. In 20-30 year only books pictures and models will remind how it was in reality.
My question is: How you going explain for future generation so dramatic elimination of certain existing prototype form sport contest?
Under standard wingspan all single engine prototypes will have approximately similar flying abilities.
Who in RCCA really care if certain (likely very small) population of pilots will fly for example diver bombers during contest? Rules sad: this is a game. (More diversity = more fun and more history).
Sorry for too many emotions, but I am a scale guy who grown up with certain favorite prototype and your rules not allowed me to fly official scale contest.
In addition: I believe it is not bad idea to correct somehow 2610 rules (allow changing scale for massive fighters WWII up to certain size (48’’)
As experiment: Let allow bigger scale WWII fighters fly during 2610 events!?
If it will work in three years: No needs in new <b>separate class</b> .
Thanks Serg, you are not alone. Ed, let's start with the evil oddballs that placed in the top 10 since 2001. That is why I started a thread on who flew what, but seems nobody cares. If the plane doesn't show some outstanding advantage, then again, I don't see the beef.
The Ta152, the Fulmar are/were hated by many and considered oddballs, along with the IL2. At 48 inch wingspan, how much advantage do they really have?? I don't know, I'd have to draw them all up in Rhino and do a surface calc that is very accurate.
You pick what you see to be the five largest threats to your class, planes that have been flying in 2610, and compare. Is it worth all this haggling? Probably not! You get your frontline fighters, we get to work on our prototypes, mockups, or short run production types.
Is anyone else seeing this? Should I just drop it all together?
I think the honest answer that I am not getting is that folks want only to fly what they feel should, based upon criteria designed to meet their likings. They want to try to replicate WWII as close to real as possible. Yet, make is all equal? That is odd to me. If we are going to recreate it to the point of what really happened, then drop the 48 inch rule, and go back to a true scale class.
Oh, sorry Roy, there I go again! LOL, the dead horse syndrome!
Regards
Terry Harner
I swear at times I feel like Samuel Adams going up against the Crown!
The Ta152, the Fulmar are/were hated by many and considered oddballs, along with the IL2. At 48 inch wingspan, how much advantage do they really have?? I don't know, I'd have to draw them all up in Rhino and do a surface calc that is very accurate.
You pick what you see to be the five largest threats to your class, planes that have been flying in 2610, and compare. Is it worth all this haggling? Probably not! You get your frontline fighters, we get to work on our prototypes, mockups, or short run production types.
Is anyone else seeing this? Should I just drop it all together?
I think the honest answer that I am not getting is that folks want only to fly what they feel should, based upon criteria designed to meet their likings. They want to try to replicate WWII as close to real as possible. Yet, make is all equal? That is odd to me. If we are going to recreate it to the point of what really happened, then drop the 48 inch rule, and go back to a true scale class.
Oh, sorry Roy, there I go again! LOL, the dead horse syndrome!
Regards
Terry Harner
I swear at times I feel like Samuel Adams going up against the Crown!