"Guidelines Discussion"

Here's the place to talk about "Light" electric combat limited to Open designs with brushed motors.

Moderator: hbartel

slam
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:14 pm
Location: USA

Post by slam »

slow sticks as a spec class.

it seems like a good idea. i hate the idea of not building my own planes but have always wanted a true spec class. i would, however, take the advice of a local that has been flying the slow sticks in combat (indoors) for quite a while. he suggests making nimh batts mandatory. i happen to think that this is probably a good idea. the batt is very exposed on a slow stick, and an indoor fire could make for difficulty finding future locations. the slow sticks can handle the weight, my friend flys a plane with bunches of tape(repairs) and a big 1300? nimh at 18oz. he is happy with its performance.

on the other hand i have built an open plane that would work indoors. it is possible to make a plane with our durability knowledge work.

slam
gunfighter
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 12:32 pm
Location: USA

Post by gunfighter »

We have been flying slow sticks (and FFF flying wings) in combat for quite a while with LiPo's and I have never seen or heard "first hand" of a fire. Not saying it could not happen. I've heard of it in the forums, but it is usually related to overcharging (too high a charge rate).

BUT - I'll go with whatever the majority wants. The "GWS flight pack" often sold with the slow stick does have a NiMh (or is it NiCad) battery in it so it would probably be a good move to spec NiMh or NiCad AND a "C" or "D" gear brushed motor. (My goodness - did I say that!)

I have heard several people talking about building a "slow stick equivalent" from white foam with or without a small brushless. This also has possibilities. Perhaps we need 2 <u>indoor</u> classes!?![:0]
catboater
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:33 am

Post by catboater »

Well, We flew our combat demo at the big model show today and got a lot of good feedback on it. I distrbuted about 300 flyers, I printed up, to several vendors at the show too. They were info about our group. Before I left, I went around to see how many were picked up by attendees and was please to see that at least 250 or so were gone.
I was also approached by a fellow from Kamloops Canada which is about 500 miles north of the show site. He said they were also forming a group and he would be contacting me for more info. We hope to get together this summer for a match.
So, we planted a lot of seeds today. It'll be fun to see if any of them grow.
User avatar
boiler
Posts: 3336
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:16 pm
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Post by boiler »

[:D]Good job! If we all plant whatever seeds we can, this will be the fastest growing sport in the country.
User avatar
Which_way_is_up
Posts: 1637
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2002 8:54 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by Which_way_is_up »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by catboater</i>
<br />Well, We flew our combat demo at the big model show today and got a lot of good feedback on it. I distrbuted about 300 flyers, I printed up, to several vendors at the show too. They were info about our group. Before I left, I went around to see how many were picked up by attendees and was please to see that at least 250 or so were gone.
I was also approached by a fellow from Kamloops Canada which is about 500 miles north of the show site. He said they were also forming a group and he would be contacting me for more info. We hope to get together this summer for a match.
So, we planted a lot of seeds today. It'll be fun to see if any of them grow.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">


What information was on your flyer?
catboater
Posts: 19
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 12:33 am

Post by catboater »

The flyer was pretty basic. I asked if you were interested in Electric Combat, if so, come and join our group of pilots.
We fly WWII foam fighter airplanes and also open class.
WWII uses small airplanes with 25"-32" wingspans. We pull 15' crepe' streamers and the object is to cut your opponents' streamer. These airplanes are typically powered with small brushless motors or GWS Slow Stick motors.
I then said when and where we fly.
"E-Combat is growing hugely across the nation, so come out and get in now at the beginning."
Then I gave our contact info. I tried to keep it short, basic and understandable. What do you think?
gunfighter
Posts: 860
Joined: Tue May 28, 2002 12:32 pm
Location: USA

Post by gunfighter »

Sounds good Cat - you know, it might be a good idea to make up an RCCA flyer that we could all print and add information about our local groups. They could then be passed out at local hobby shops, events etc, to get the word out. The flyer should also have a link to this site and subject areas for electric combat.

What do you think?
Chop
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:48 am
Location: USA

Post by Chop »

There is a group of us South Dakotan's who have been experimenting with E-Combat. I made a press that heat forms fan fold material into an undercambered airfoil. We all fly the same plane - 26" wingspan, stick fuselage, 6 oz., Aileron, elevator, throttle, GWS
IPS-DX2BB-2XCS motor and gearbox, 7.4 volt lipo. We control turning radius and looping ability by linkage throw (we measure the deflection with an angle finder). We pull 12' tissue and have a blast. The planes cost about $6 to build. Motor, 450 MH lipo,
and flight pack cost about $95 My two cents
slam
Posts: 834
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2001 8:14 pm
Location: USA

Post by slam »

chop, good to hear that combat is going strong in other parts.

we have been really trying to get our slow wwII planes excepted and flown so we (drewjet and i) fly combat with the local electric guys all the time at the electric field.

a funny thing has happened. they got all fired up about combat and have built pico sticks with the full fuse and are combatting them. there are 6 in the air at once, and it looks like great fun.

we tryed to get them to come over to our wwII planes, they are tougher and look better but they have stayed with those sticks.

not ones to sit out any type of combat, drew flew one last weekend and i just picked up one yesterday.

the funny thing is that these fragile planes are really pretty tough. just bring the ca and tape with you and you will fly most of the heats. our planes are much better suited for what they are doing but these planes go together in about 2hours and are $16 to buy and the wing kits are $6.

i just have to publicly apologize to irone. probably the same results could be acomplished with fanfold if EVERYONE is flying the same planes or types.

slam
Chop
Posts: 2
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 1:48 am
Location: USA

Post by Chop »

I've found the fan fold to be more durable than the "poly-whatever" that GWS uses. Our wings cost less than a dollar and take just a few minute to replace and hook-up the linkage. I understand that regulating this form is pretty difficult. I works great for our team and individual leagues though.
Joe Ortiz
Posts: 7
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Joe Ortiz »

Reading all the post, there was no mentioning of the beginner combat pilot, like myself[:D], well not actually a beginner, I have some ssc and open-b, but to electrics. I'm building a GWS Me-109 with a direct drive brushless motor, since I have no time to scratch build, this will be the way to go, only 35" wing span, and it could be had in a slope version for under $30, just add you own mojo, but I do agree to come up with some kind of power limitation and since I or we fly at high altitude, 5800 plus, there should be rules set for this type of flying as well. I know that this thread is not about setting rules, but keep in mind that what ever works for you down there may not work up here, and it's a proven fact, 2548 scale is not working so so good with the proposed prop. So, with that in mind, I'm going to experiment with mt GWS plane and post a report.

Joe[8D]
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

Joe,

George Kerr just submitted a change proposal for a prop for 2548 and Limited B for high altitude operation. You might want to contact George and get the details.

I am a former resident of Littleton CO, so I am well aware of the density altitude issues you guys face. That is one of the reasons I want to work with folks like you and George to get a workable solution for field altitudes >= 3500' MSL in all classes.

Ed
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

I have flown with 15' RCCA denecrepe streamers, and with 30' x 1/2" streamers, and my general impression is that I prefer the 30' streamers for the following reasons:

1. They make bigger initial targets
2. They match the RCCA standard streamer length
3. They cut more easily
4. You can easily splice two partial streamers back together to make make a full streamer.

I'd appreciate hearing experiences from folks who have flown against both types of streamers.

Thanks!
Ed
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

A couple of weeks ago I received a telephone call from Scott Clark at littlescreamers.com. Scott has been monitoring the combat forums and watching with interest on how we are progressing with our combat experiments. We had a nice conversation and kicked around a few ideas, and I'd like to get some input from the ecombat pilots.

<i>We have a spec class that defines wingspan, area, weight range, desired performance, battery and then let someone like Scott tell us the spec prop, motor and controller necessary. The spec could be updated every 2 years to keep up with technology trends, and no obsolete the equipment too rapidly.</i>

This would make it simpler to compete, as everybody would be running the same 'package'. Also, it should save money in the long run as there would be less 'trial and error' work to find out what works and what doesn't by a lot of folks. Initially, it would mean buying some new motors, controllers and props for most folks. The manufacturer would have to commit to a two year availability of motors and spares.

Thoughts? Comments?

Ed
Alex Treneff
Posts: 941
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 2:00 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Alex Treneff »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Ed Kettler</i>
<br />A couple of weeks ago I received a telephone call from Scott Clark at littlescreamers.com. Scott has been monitoring the combat forums and watching with interest on how we are progressing with our combat experiments. We had a nice conversation and kicked around a few ideas, and I'd like to get some input from the ecombat pilots.

<i>We have a spec class that defines wingspan, area, weight range, desired performance, battery and then let someone like Scott tell us the spec prop, motor and controller necessary. The spec could be updated every 2 years to keep up with technology trends, and no obsolete the equipment too rapidly.</i>

This would make it simpler to compete, as everybody would be running the same 'package'. Also, it should save money in the long run as there would be less 'trial and error' work to find out what works and what doesn't by a lot of folks. Initially, it would mean buying some new motors, controllers and props for most folks. The manufacturer would have to commit to a two year availability of motors and spares.

Thoughts? Comments?

Ed
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Two thoughts.

Why not have just a spec prop and RPM limit. Then you can run whatever motor you want.

If there is going to be a spec motor and controller shouldn't all the pilots pick it, not just Scott?

I'm waiting a little while to get the gear for my e-combat "zero" to see how this class pans out.
Post Reply

Return to “"Light" Electric Combat”