E-TA152 for 2610 and 2548 at the NATS

You got a cool electric WWII combat rig? This is the place to show it off!

Moderator: hbartel

montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

Lee,
Yes, I built and flew a hurricane at last year's nats. Took 3rd with it, with 1st,2nd, and 4th being taken by Hat Trick zeros. They could out-turn me (I was over weight at nearly 4lbs), but I had them in a dive.

Picture:
Image

I think the nose is a tad extended because I was coming out way tail heavy, and wound up messing with the motor mount and cowl to get it even close (and there's a 2oz brass nut on the crankshaft under the spinner, lead on the engine mount, and it's STILL tail heavy, which is why I'm doing a re-design. So, since I'm doing a re-design, I just want to know what the "real rules" are as opposed to the rules I'm reading in the rule book.

And don't try that "you're not qualified to comment" BS, ok? It's a logical falicy, and you know it. Especially when you're totally wrong about what I have and haven't done.

Lee, I agree that the TA-152 is a cool plane, and it does make sense to build a plane that can fly in both classes right now. I'd do that myself (I was thinking P-47N), but since I still have 5 flyable Firebrands.

I agree with what Terry said, and I'd like things to smooth out a bit. But like Terry, I was honestly confused about what I was seeing in your pictures compared to what I read in the rules. Now that you've clarified that you also think the wing in the origional pictures isn't "scale enough for 2548" as a TA-152H, we're probably a lot closer than some of the above would indicate.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Kirk, I have to say I think that your Hurricane looks good, very close to scale.

To give my opinion about rule interpretation, here`s how I see it. 2548 rules are pretty strict. They don`t give any percentage of fudge factor. Since there isn`t any percentage offered, I would interpret that as "there is no fudge factor, like there is in 2610". This is particularly emphisised when the rules refer to "performance enhancing deviation".

I think that the rules are too strict and they really don`t allow any deviation from scale if it improves performance.

If you changed the wing position on your Hurricane, it would be to reduce weight and therefore would increase performance. If my wing tips are too wide, it increases performance. If the Hattrick Zero`s wing has too much cord and a down-sized fuselage, that`s to increase performance.
It seems to me that they all fall into the same category as should be subject to the same scrutiny.

2610 rules specifically allow for deviations from scale which "improve the flight characteristics" of a model. I would interpret that as allowing wider wing tips, larger vertical stabs and longer noses than even a 10% deviation.

The main problem is that the rules aren`t clear in either event, so that leaves it up to the CD and/or the judging pilots to sort out at the contest. That`s not good.

My personal solution is that as long as the Zeros fly as is, then I will stretch the rules too. And if it comes down to an argument on the flight line, oh well. I`m willing to defend my designs by comparing them to other planes like the Zero which definitely push the envelope.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

In conclusion, I would like to see the rules regarding the airframe standardized between the two classes, and the rules regarding "how scale is scale enough" to be more clear and easier to enforce.
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

This is the glass and foam kit that Waverly RC was selling several years ago. It is designed to meet the ACES rules. I think it is a Stein Models kit from Eastern Europe:

<center>Image</center>

It was one tail heavy son of a gun till we put three ounces of lead in the nose. You should see Rick Bohlman's TA-152! Fast and beautiful.
combatgoblin
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2006 11:20 am

Post by combatgoblin »

Hi! My name is Don Fourson and I'm a recovering scale nazi I.ve been clean for three years.I have looked at some plans for 2548 even though I wanted to build them the wing area was to small to work well.So I decided on the one that I felt would work best even though I really didn't care for it. I will build it as close to scale as possible and use weight to balance it and work with what I have.
I won't try to change anything to make it perform better I don't need to see what I can get away with and I'm not selling kits so I don't need to fudge somthing incase one is sent to somebody inexperienced.I can show up at any meet and not worry about whether or not my plane is legal becuse it is and most likly I'll be in one of the last three spots but thats okay with me because I'll have a plane that looks good in the air and I will have fun.So I've stoped worring about other pepoles airplanes if it has the markings of what
its suppose to be and at 15 ft it sort of looks like what it suppose to be than its all good and I say lets fly.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

Lee,
We agree, 100%. I think the rules are vague and even slightly contridictory.

I was wondering about making the Hurri's fuse longer up front. I didn't origionally, I was shooting for 100% scale (I was even going to put in the wing fillets, but ran out of time). I just wanted to make sure the fuse looked right, but the CG was awful, so I moved the engine forward and streched the cowl a little, it's only about 1/2", I think.

However, since the rules have a min weight, I'm not sure I totally agree that adjusting CG to avoid adding weight is a performance enhancement.

The Hattrick zero has a small fuse? I did not know that. I didn't notice it when I looked at the models, they looked ok, but I wasn't holding a 3-view at the time.

I've always thought that the scale judging/rules in 2548 was too strict. I know you'd never know that from my posts above. But if I have to live by the rules.... you know?

So, I'm not a lover of mid-year rules changes, but I'm going to think a bit about scale rules and how to make them work, if they can. It's a tough problem. Many (not all, maybe not most, but who's counted) guys thought 2610 is too open, and I think a lot of guys think 2548 has gone too far the other way.

------

Don, the problem isn't with guys who are middle-of-the-pack flyers. Heck, I've looked the other way at contests several times for guys who are new or struggling and need any break they can get. And I know it's been done for other guys at other contests as well. But when it comes to the handful of us who are really pretty evenly matched, and who fly to compete and to have fun, the rules start to matter more.

It sounds stupid, but I expect these rules to apply more to me, Lee, and a sizeable handful of other guys more than to guys who are just trying it out. Technically they should apply evenly to everyone, but if you're having trouble even finishing a contest or getting a cut or 2, nit-picking about what is and isn't a "legal performance enhanceing variation from scale" doesn't matter. On the other hand, looking for a legal edge and building a better plane is how some of us compete.

It's easier in the open classes (B, SSC, LimB, etc) where airframe rules are "open" and you're free to look for whatever edge you can find. In scale, we all know how to make better flying planes, so the argument comes down to what are we allowed to do, and are we all clear on what is and isn't ok so that we can duke it out (in the air and in the workshop) and not feel like we never had a chance. I just want a fair fight, really.

At Nats, the Hattrick zeros blew me away. I thought my Hurri flew OK. I was wrong, those zeros out turned and out climbed me easily. I've been trying to figure out how to beat them at this year's nats. I have some ideas. I have some cad drawings started. (and I'm running out of time!) I just need to know what I can and can't do so that if I win, I can be pround of it. And if I loose, I know it's because I got out-flown or out-designed or both.

Getting beaten fair and square is what competition is all about, it makes winning the next round that much cooler.
montague
Posts: 1639
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2002 3:24 pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Post by montague »

Trying to be not so long winded this time. Lee said:

"2610 rules specifically allow for deviations from scale which "improve the flight characteristics" of a model. I would interpret that as allowing wider wing tips, larger vertical stabs and longer noses than even a 10% deviation."

Yeah, I agree. That clause has always bothered me since it did seem to allow a larger-than-10% change if it was to make a plane flyable. And it left nothing to help draw a line between a necessary mod to make a design possible and a mod that just makes the plane turn a little tighter. I just worked off what I thought was the generally accepted way to read that, which was basically to say that there was no conflict, and that the 10% rule was just a "how much" clarification of the first one. But you make a good point in bringing it up.
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

Here are a couple of pics of #2. Still needs decals. This is in 2610 form. It has a 52" span the root cord including aileron is about 8.75" and the tip is 4". This plane flys just as well as #1, maybe a little better. I think that this one is good for competition. After 2610 is over at the Nats, I plan to trim the wing down to 48" and fly it in 2548 if any of them are left.

Image

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

Post by Ed Kettler »

<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 />BTW, Ed Kettler IS my inspiration for this years PSS fest. If I can get it done, he will CRAP![:p]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I wait with bated breath to see what escapes from Area 52[:D]
THend
Posts: 2397
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:12 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by THend »

[:D]
THend
Posts: 2397
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2001 9:12 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by THend »

BTW, just cause I hit the slopes too doesn't mean I won't be flying combat! [:D]

Heck, my new project is for both the slope and combat![8D]
ZenManiac
Posts: 296
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2004 2:14 am
Location: Near Madison, WI USA

Post by ZenManiac »

<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 />
Heck, my new project is for both the slope and combat![8D]
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When can we see? Please post pix. [:D]
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

Terry,

so are you checking out slope combat too?

I'm avoiding using my Zagi and instead am building a ME 109
Lee Liddle
Posts: 3330
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2002 10:30 pm
Location: USA

Post by Lee Liddle »

It would be great to have some of the slope pilots post info in the slope section of the forum. I`d like to see what`s going on with that side of combat, even though I live in the flatlands.
jj
Posts: 729
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2002 11:45 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by jj »

I don't think I really qualify as a slope pilot yet. I can say that apparently about 20+ planes up at once happens a lot in slope combat. I just registered for an Colorado event in late June and we have 40+ signed up. You get a frequency for the day (actually 2 days) and everyone just keeps flying, recharging, flying. Using 2600mah rx batteries to minimize down time.
Post Reply

Return to “Electric WWII Fighters”