Uniting all WW II 1/12 scale fighter classes !?


Moderator: hbartel

topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Uniting all WW II 1/12 scale fighter classes !?

Post by topspeed »

Actually reuniting I meant to say.

Back in the old days long long time ago in a far...far away galaxy I used to fly dogfight. At that time european dogfighting was lead by Helge Orbo ( founder of IDA ) from Norway and Greg Rose ( founder of ASDA ) in USA.

Everyone was happy ....for a while.

What happened ?

Some were into scale too much ( with military ranks )...and some pilots needed more speed and action. These folks did not fit into one gategory.

The IDA rules were purely attached to the original AC engine sizes. ACES sizes are too loose when .25 can be used if span is 12 m and 25 m2 wing area. For instance a Mustang and a TA-152 H-1 has to use .15...no one ( serious flyer ) will fly'em with those rules.

I have been studying about 200 different WW II AC:s and been checking what is happening in Europe and USA.

I also made a survey ( poll ) with 104 most used planes around the world during 1939-1945..and 21% favoured P-51D, 18% Me-109 F/G and 17% Spitfire + fourth was FW 190 A with 10% ( all FWs and TA 152 H would add up to be almost as popular as Spitfire with 16% ).Special mention:..Brewster 5%. Me 262 and Bearcat got some votes as did Ki-61 and Yak-3, Mig-3 and La-5 etc. Poll is not finished so I will update this as soon as I can.

Here is what I propose in order to get all classes together again and enjoy the game and put some relistic maneuvering into game again. Planes look doesn't interest me that much..as soon as it is safe and flies ok.

This will apply the engine sizes only ( " + power and transmission " )...5% deviation etc are all right and other old rules.

Original engine sizes should be addressed with certaing respect. But in the same time understanding the real 1/12 scale aspects...and safety and engine markets.

On one end we have early WW II planes that were small and weak powered...but I would still like to see them flying competetively ( doesn't everyone ?).

A. original engine size based chart:

1. 950 hp or less => .10 engine
2. 1600 hp and more than 950 => .15 engine
3. 2200 hp and more than 1600 hp => .21 engine ( .30 four stroke )

and here is where the fun starts:

B. Size based chart:

1. Original radial engine AC with more than 10,5 m span => .21 allowed
2. Original inline engined fighter more than 11.8 m span => .21 alloved ( despite original size )
3. Original 12 m span and 25 m2 wingarea .25 engine allowed ( .40 four stroke ) ( if original 1800 hp or more).
4. Original 12,5 m span and 29 m2 wingarea .30 allowed ( original 2200 hp or more )( maybe even .32 and .52 four stroke )
5. Any aircraft with original span more than 16 m can use .25 engine ( despite the originals enginesize ) and twins .21s
6. Any twin original smaller than 16 m in span have to settle for .15s.

<font size="5">AND NO TUNED PIPES OR PROP LIMITS OR RPM LIMITS !</font id="size5">

At the end I think rules would make this easier when ridiculous rpm counting days would be over ( rpms will rise accordingly to the planes aerodynamics around 10% and cannot be verified on the ground ). Freedom to choose a prop is basic rights ..right ? [:D]


So the A.rule would be always valid, but the B. rule would allow some exceptions ( like T-bolt with .30 ) but would exclude anyone to kill himself and hurt others with Spitfire XIV with similar engine.

Also same radials like Renard R-37 and FW 190 A + Brewster Buffalo could use .21....and Ta-152 H-1 and Vickers Wellesley a .25.

I think this would bring all classes to together but would still have some respect towards scale aspects. After all isn't it the P-51D with .21 engine that is closer to original than a tuned piped .25 doing 155 mph ?

Me-109 G with .15 is plenty...and those who want .21 for K model can have it..it will be too heavy, but still. Important is that no one puts an .30 into it or .25.

I have not flown for 10 years combat...but I have 3 planes unfinished in wraps because I don't like the rules now at all ( P-63, Spit Mk XIV..and some unfinisheds Brewster, Fiat G-50 a K-4 ).

I also dislike the totally distorted unscale like features like Fairey Battle dominating the skies...or C-3603 Thun for instance...with all respect to those who compete with them.

Am I making any sense or am I way off the line now ?

I think these rules would keep more people in modelbusiness alive than previous ones ( too many classes ).



best regards,

Jukka from Finland ( IDA Major => country co. since 1990 ).


and

Happy Holidays...and Christmas if you will !
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

I'd be interested in the European experience with scoring versus wingspan. In 1/12th scale in the US, the dominant planes are the long wing span planes like the Battle, Fulmar, TA-152H, Skyraider and Firebrand while mainstream planes like the Mustang and Me-109 disappeared.

Regards,
Ed
topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Post by topspeed »

Exactly Ed..this is my point.

We have extremely large planes dominating because they are allowed a big engine ( huge ) and mainstream kites like P-51D and Fw 190 A and Spitfire XIV ( Griffon engined ) have to use a ridiculous .15 size engine.

I think this is not what the sport was created for in 1980ies ( and why it became so popular in the first place ) by Greg Rose and Helge Orbo.

My very best !


Yours truly,

Jukka Takamaa / Oulu / Finland
User avatar
Ed Kettler
Posts: 3437
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2001 6:05 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by Ed Kettler »

So what would happen if you simplified the engines to .30 cubic inches total?
topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Post by topspeed »

I think one could make a Bearcat go very fast...and possibly increase its size by 5% thus making it a better streamer catcher.

I assume some would say the speeds are insane and safety is at stage.

It would be intriguing for me since I am seasoned pilot and I could hold my own, but could a rookie ?

Possibly a new rule should be then introduced where pilot has to fly pylon racing session first to show he can master his kite.

Definitely .30 could be used only if original AC has 23,5 m2 wingarea minimum and 2100 hp in original output.

Maybe .25 engine if original had 12 m span and 23,5 m2 wingarea ( despite output ).

.21 allowed if span radial 10.5 m and inline 11.5 m.
and or original output greater than 1600 hp.

Any ac that original had les power than 1600 hp or smaller than above mentioned will have to settle for .18 or smaller engine.

Any ac that originally had less than 1000 hp and smaller than 10.5 m in span ( radial ) and 11.5 m ( inline ) and wingarea less than 20 m2 would have to use .15 ( or smaller ).

Any 2 stroke .21 could be fitted with .30 4-stroke and .25 .40 4-stroke and .30 into .52 4.stroke if original wingarea was 28 m2 and original engine 2500 hp or greater.

All this would lead to situation where real fighters could dominate ( F8F, N1K2-J, P-47, Tempest ) and the whole picture would create more WW II air combat like projection.

You see this is all in progress still. This is very difficult when safety and dynamic similitude maneuvering are aims to greater satisfaction in the sport.

I am not totally aware the situation in USA, but european situation slightly bugs me now. Would this suggestion now satisfy you ?

Hellcat, Bearcat and Corsair could use .30 and T-bolt...and some even .52 4-stroke.

-----------

Other way to approach .30 would be size change to 1/11 or 1/10 scale for all models.

-----------

One would be allow anyone use any engine he sees fit, but judges would have to decite if it is safe or not.

-----------

Last proposition would be based on wingarea alone.

1.15 m2 or less .10

2. 15-18 m2 .15

3. 18-22 m2 .21

4. 22-23.5 .25

5. 23.5-28 .30

6. 28 - 30 ..also .52 4-stroke

dobbeldekkers would have to increase 2/5 to the area rule.

-----------

Food for thoughts in uniting all WW II combat on all continents.

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

Post by Ed Kettler »

We simplified the plane rules in 2548 to have single engine planes have a .25 and a maximum wing span of 48", while twins can have 2x.15s (.30) max and up to 60" wings. We also have RPM and prop limits to keep things under control, along with minimum weights which helps eliminate tight turning battles (furballs). No tuned pipes are allowed either.

What this does is provide about a 100 kph battle that looks fairly realistic and allows the historically appropriate planes (Me-109, P-51) to be competitive.

The spec props and rpm limits also make it fairly easy to integrate electrics without having to figure out equivalants with displacements.

Going to this approach eliminates the 1/12th scale rules. In fact, changes for 2009 in the US rules have eliminated the 1/12th scale requirement for single engine planes. We may end up with two variations: slow and fast. Slow uses the "limited" components (prop, rpm, no pipes) while Fast removes those limits. Same airframe, two events. We have some "hair on fire" folks who want 140+kph planes that explode in a midair; I like mine a bit slower and can survive a minor midair.

Time will tell if this will work.

Ed
topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Post by topspeed »

<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 />We simplified the plane rules in 2548 to have single engine planes have a .25 and a maximum wing span of 48", while twins can have 2x.15s (.30) max and up to 60" wings.What this does is provide about a 100 kph battle that looks fairly realistic and allows the historically appropriate planes (Me-109, P-51) to be competitive.

The spec props and rpm limits also make it fairly easy to integrate electrics without having to figure out equivalants with displacements.

Going to this approach eliminates the 1/12th scale rules. Time will tell if this will work.

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

I see yo have now 1/8 scale ( this mean making the plane 4 x bigger in cubature than in 1/12 scale ) combat for Me-109.

My suggestion was to make WW II aerial combat realistic within one scale 1/12.

If you have plus minus 5 % deviation in scale it means already 25% difference in cubature ( size ).

This is the american way and I speak no more about 1/12 scale at this site.

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

Post by Ed Kettler »

I think you missed the point ... why don't you abandon all of the variations on engines and rpm? Are they buying you anything?

It all goes back to understanding what it is you are trying to achieve: your objectives. Once you understand those, then you can make the tradeoffs and the rules changes.

What is helping scale combat grow? What are the pain points? Is the playing field level, or are there dominant airframes? Is that good or bad? Are people having fun?
Cross Check

Post by Cross Check »

Hi Jukka and Ed,
Seasons' Greetings from Canada !

It is hard pleasing everyone when it comes to making Scale Combat rules. Even harder, if you want to keep the rules Simple !

The one thing that makes R/C Combat possible here is the very well thought out safety rules we got from the RCCA. They are practical and work very, very well. The only differences here are, you have to land after a midair, and we can only have 8 planes up at one time, which is part of our MAAC(insurance) Safety Code.

Our WW2 Maac Scale Combat is going strong with newcomers replacing anyone 'dropping out'. Most who stop flying with us just have other 'life/family/other hobby' issues and will be back eventually.

We are able to change our rules every year, if we need/want to. We have been 'tweaking' our scale rules over the last few years and here is where we are at:

MAAC Scale WW2 Combat is 'basicly' 2610 with these mods...

-Only 'single seat Fighters that flew operationally between 1939-45' allowed. This leaves the Ta-152 the only 'big span' subject, and we will put a 'Max 48in. span' rule in to hinder anyone wanting to build them. (There are several built Ta-152s left here and are slowly being phased out. Coro lasts a long time !)

-No tuned pipes. The (stock/no baffle)O.S.FX.25 is our engine of choice. Any 'lesser' engines are allowed. No RPM/Nitro/prop/etc.rules, because everyone just runs 10-15%/9or10-4s and the FXs last us for many years/gallons/dirtnaps.

-We can now scale up any 'smaller' 1/12th scale subjects to a 44in. wingspan. This new rule is for pilots who want to build Me-109s and the many other smaller WW2 Fighters, so they can compete evenly with the mid/larger sized 1/12 scale subjects. (I know it is weird not having a size difference in '1/12th scale', but otherwise, no one will build the many cool smaller WW2 Fighters.)

Bottom line is we are having FUN. Seems all of us do not care about any pts/who wins a Match, but we just enjoy towing streamers on WW2 Fighters and have fun flying Combat. The performance of the planes (70-80mph) is still challenging for any 'experts', yet not too intimidating for any newcomers. I don't think any of us drive more than 2hrs to our one day Matches. We have some really great inter-club rivalries that are a laugh to be part of.

The one thing we did not count on is the WW1 Scale Combat we started as a 'lark' a few years back.
Seems to keep building up steam and attracting more and more pilots. (A 'big' Match here is 4 Rounds WW1, lunch, then 6 Rounds WW2)

Jukka, check out the Combat forum at www.rccanada.ca for more info on our Canadian R/C Combat.

I've lost the link to AcesEurope. Can anyone help?

My best Holiday/New Year wishes to any fellow Combat Flyers...

Flying R/C Combat is the most fun you can have with a model airplane...

Take care,
Have fun,
Dave'crosscheck'Fallowfield
Maac 6437
Unabashed Combat Team
topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Post by topspeed »

<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 />I think you missed the point ... why don't you abandon all of the variations on engines and rpm? Are they buying you anything?

What are the pain points?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

For me the european rules seem to give advantage to original models of 12 m span and 25 m2 wingarea.

I think all this size variation caused a whole heap of operators to quit selling quality products like Turnkey, Ron Daniels etc.

I would like to stick to 1/12 and understanding that + and - 5%--means possibility to tune the plane for a certain engine.

-----

I try again:

.10 original 450 to 800 hp
.15 800 to 1500 hp
.21 1 500 to 1750 hp
.25 1 750 - 2500 hp
.30 2 500 - 3000 hp

but .21 only if radial and wingspan at least 10,5 m or inline 11.0 m

and .25 only if original wingarea minimum 23.5 m2

and .30 only if original wingarea minimum 28.0 m2


these limits for safety !

( looks more simple now and allows in Europe little bigger engines on classic fighters ).

------------


Link to ACES europe:

http://aircombat.modelarji.com/index.php
Timo
Posts: 36
Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 5:22 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Timo »

Hi cross check,

I tried to get a contact to aircombat in canada because of World Aircombat Scale Games 2010 in Germany (more information here http://www.rccombat.com/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=13051), maybe you can send me a mail?

Rules for scale competition are not easy, that's true, because in every case some planes have advantages over others. But rules aren't too important as long as pilots don't fly too competitive and mostly fly for fun. And most important thing to get newcomers and keep old pilots is, that planes are easy and quick to build and combat doesn't gets too fast to avoid heavy collisions and make dogfights more controllable and exciting.
I think it's a bit like searching for the "world formular", it's not sure if there's a solution everyone is 100% satisfied. It's always a compromise. Same scale has also it's advanteges, especially the difference between all the outlines of the fighters brings some interesting differences in flying characteristics.

Merry christmas, a happy new year and a good and successful season 2009 to all of you,
Timo
topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Post by topspeed »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Timo</i>
<br />

Rules for scale competition are not easy, that's true, because in every case some planes have advantages over others. But rules aren't too important as long as pilots don't fly too competitive and mostly fly for fun. And most important thing to get newcomers and keep old pilots is, that planes are easy and quick to build and combat doesn't gets too fast to avoid heavy collisions and make dogfights more controllable and exciting.
I think it's a bit like searching for the "world formular", it's not sure if there's a solution everyone is 100% satisfied. It's always a compromise. Same scale has also it's advanteges, especially the difference between all the outlines of the fighters brings some interesting differences in flying characteristics.

Merry christmas, a happy new year and a good and successful season 2009 to all of you,
Timo
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></font id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

This is exactly my point. To make it easy and interesting. Rules nowadays have too many aspect that are limited.
To build an easy plane by means of a "styrofoamball" with lotsa hp:s..as it in many cases seem to be nowadays...cannot be only way.
Destroying all old rulez and creating new ones was like some Oidipal father undenial thing.
What I am suggesting is making an easy sport with certain scalelooks but possibility make easy planes from several materials and keep the "reynolds causing effects" in mind and creating well flying kites that pay tribute to original AC power to weight ratio.
There is a big change that a new AirCombat class will appear into scene replacing the old two ( ACES and IDA ).
Developing a working good simple rule that takes care of the developement of the WW II kites and their multitude in mind...after all the amount or type of the WW II planes is not changeing so it is only a matter a time when new superb set of rules can be found ( in order to all partisipants on all continents can compete ).

I did not not say is was going to be easy..it is hard and we are going to succeed. I am sure about it.

Merry X-mas Timo and Cross Check and Ed...and all reading this thread.

rgds,

Juke

PS: I worked yesterday 4 hours to retune competetive F8F-2 within ACES rules of my old 2003 set of plans. I think some tuning my rule proposition could work like: Extra notion: All planes with enuf of power to meet the engine rule but fail in size isuue could be enlarged to meet the same criteria as a model ( 10.5 m radail or 11 m inline original ). Also I would like to emphasize that the smaller the engines are the cheaper they can be...this ecological as well. This would mean thinner fuses when looked from above ( but no profile fuses perse ).
topspeed
Posts: 71
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am
Location: Finland

Post by topspeed »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Timo</i>
<br /> And most important thing to get newcomers and keep old pilots is, that planes are easy and quick to build and combat doesn't gets too fast to avoid heavy collisions and make dogfights more controllable and exciting.

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

This would be best obtained if combatants were given extra points for managing to fly with class or two classes smaller engine that is allowed.
For instance a Bearcat would be allowed a .25. Pilot who builts his kite to fly only .10 size bearcat would have to make it 5% smaller and still be slow..but could still get points.
Lets say 50 points per heat per class size smaller engine. So 150 points per heat and 600 after 4 heats ( if he makes it that far )without cutting a streamer.

Also "real aces" should be encouraged by giving extra points if own streamer is uncut ( or is it allready there ).

Any comments..would that safisfy US pilots that previous post EXTRA NOTION ? At least Me 109 K-4 and LA-7 pilots would be able to fly a bigger kite and scalelikeness and safety would not be compromised.

La-7: http://infoart.udm.ru/avia/company/moni ... etails.htm

K-4: http://www.xs4all.nl/~tozu/me109/family/109K.htm


...and Happy Safe New Year 2009 !
TheKid
Posts: 151
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 3:20 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by TheKid »

I seem to have missed something here. It seems you are saying we have too many rules, but your proposal calls for about a dozen "if-then" statements about what engine to use??? That would be more confusing than anything else. And still, if you are goingg to have say a 1/12th mustang against a 1/12 fulmar, you are going to hinder the mustang even more by giving it less power? It seems as though the bigger planes already have an advantage because of their flying qualities, why give them more power as well? It may actually be interesting if you were to give the smaller planes more power, so as they would preform "hotter" than the bigger ships, which would be true in real life...

I think it has been handled perfectly with our 2548 class. This gives everyone the ability to fly whatever they choose, and they all fly the same. There are obviously little things that are better about one plane than another, but they all fly the same, and they all fly basically "scale like".

Hey Ed, im all for slowing it down more. The slower you make it the easier it gets for me :D

I like the idea of fast and slow, although that would be a lot more building than just one [:o)]. But it would be pretty easy to just throw a pipe on and maybe not even change props. I think the 10-4 is a good prop for our purposes
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

In the United States we have two combat types: "Open" and "Scale". Our biggest problem is not rules but instead participation. There are those who think, and that includes me, that we can trace the decline in Scale participation to the rise in popularity of Open. Also it is difficult to build and maintain one type of plane, and with two, Open and Scale, only the most dedicated or crazy can keep up.

In Europe the fliers have resisted an Open class and so Scale is the only one. Here we cannot put the genie back in the bottle so we will continue to see limited scale participation. Also we fly combat to win, and not just to participate (Bob, Ed and I excepted from that last statement). Our primary goal is to score cuts and win a contest so we are focused soley on the competition and see the airplanes only as the tools of our event.

Once upon a time we had a very large membership of scale afficianodos. They were very vocal on scale, fidelity, types of planes but not so heavily invested in actually flying combat. For the event to continue we have to have participation and it was the competitors who evolved rather than the rules makers and scale fidelity specialists. That is how we got to where we are today.

The concept of "semi agressive" combat flying won't work here. As a consequence the time, effort, and expense to build and maintain a scale fleet only applies to a small percentage of the competitors.

Our best chance of regenerating interest in scale is the 2548 concept that Ed developed after years of hard work.
Post Reply