NATS SLOW COMBAT

I wonder if the logic behind Matt Stas' latest has merit?

http://www.homestead.com/necn/WinterProjects.html

Seems like a nifty concept?

See Ya

>I wonder if the logic behind Matt Stas' latest has merit?
>
>http://www.homestead.com/necn/WinterProjects.html
>
> Seems like a nifty concept?
>
>See Ya
>
>Peabody

I have considered this for stunt, but never tried it. I would think it would help in turning the sharp corners better. But I am also wondering if it would work like too much flap. Instead of rotating, the plane might jump through the corners. It would also be harder on reflexes and smoothness counts a lot in stunt. The combat guys would love to be able to turn inside the other guy and end up on his tail. Do a fast enough turn and they might get a kill on themselves, even (not good).

I think you and Windy ought to pursue this concept for stunt, however, and then report back. Watcha say?

Actually this is an old idea. I have seen it a couple of times in magazines back into the '40's. It is neat that someone is actually trying it. My guess is that 4 or 5 degrees either way would work very well. I doubt, from having had an airplane with the thrust line off by 3 degrees, that more is needed. Very interesting!

My initial response included these comments:

>>> The only potential savior of the Fast Combat event are the various Speed Limit local events, which are much less expensive to enter and much easier to learn how to compete in.

>>> There's still a "heart" in U.S. Combat, of course, and it's in the Fast Event, but the numbers of competitors are way down from what they were.

Jerry seems to have overlooked that when he said:

>> About 90% of the engines are now Nelson's at anywheres from $200 to $400 per engine and the planes are anywhere from $35-$65 apiece before you add the motor mounts and shutoffs. We need to have some more realistic lower dollar intro classes (like stunt is having this year with the beginner and intermediate classes) to get people interested in the sport again and then they can work themselves up into the big-boy classes.

(I don't know where a Nelson for only $200 might come from. Fox hasn't made a 36 in several years now, and their last two wouldn't keep up.. ) Meanwhile, I did expand on the Speed Limit Combat comments:

> I've collected some sub-$70 used (and NOS) engines that seem about right (25's with ball bearing shafts and schneurle porting that start quick, and are made by several Asian Rim suppliers. There are a couple of excellent cloned copies of the OS Max 25's (now in the FX series, but all inter-related, including the 25F models that introduced ABC/ABN guts to the FSR line).

Those are inexpensive enough for any beginning competitor, considering how low the Magnums and Thunder Tigers are sale-priced fairly regularly! And converting them to C-L is not at all costly!

I did not overlook what you said Kiwi, but as I see it I have not seen any speed limit varied events at the nats. I know that there are these type of classes on the east coast because I bought some planes from a gentleman from New Jersey at the Nats last year. Mabey if they had classes at the Nat's for different speed limit events that would get more people involved and keep some of the cost down. As far as the $200 Nelsons are concerned yes they are few and far between but I did see a couple at a swap meet last year for that and they were in pretty good shape. The gentleman was just retiring from the sport. Thanks Jerry

I am thinking of getting back into the "speed limit" combat.
As to the other combat events being "dead" yes, they were murdered. People who were killing those events refused to look at what was happening and went right on killing the event.
Bigiron

BigIron13: > I am thinking of getting back into the "speed limit"
combat.

So far, I've made three tests of the same airframe and engine; I didn't bring my tach, stopwatch, or other equipment. My feeling was that the combination was closer to 85 mph, maybe faster, than to 80 mph. But I liked the way the .25 ran for me (though the plane was twitchy as can be since it was balanced for a Nelson, a full two ounces heavier, and I was standing on an odd-shaped center circle that offered questionable footing).

Beyond the several OS Max-F 25's, I will try out the Magnum clone of the same engine, and the 25BB from Thunder Tiger that also mimics the OS Max. I've been watching for 28's and 32's of the same series, but their auction bidding seems to scale up faster than the 25's bidding does. There also aren't many such going through, it doesn't seem.

Jeff wanted to dig out some old 1960's stuff, like 36X's, but the 25's are lighter and the ABC 25's are so easy to work with, I'd rather not unearth a bunch of those, unless there's a combat class of Nostalgia stuff for the over the hill grand-dads like myself that requires using engines that old.

I'm curious what engines other folks see as good choices for 80 mph speed limit competition. It ought to be pretty wide open and economical (under $60 for the used OS Maxes, for instance).

Hmmm. Thrust vectoring comes to C/L.

If I recall correctly, the original concept was that you could build a simple 300 sq inch profile with a plain bearing nonschnurle engine on suction and fly it in slow combat, slow rat race, and profile carrier. If so, the concept didn't work. I think the original Mongoose was designed with this concept in mind.

You are correct Jim. It was SUPPOSED to be an entry level event to get more people interested in combat. When all the top guns of fast combat started flying slow, then got what THEY thought were better rules the beginners and newbies got back out and so today, there are only a few flying the event. People will NOT fly an event that they do not want to.
Bigiron

AMEN JIM AND BIGIRON, AS THIS IS THE POINT THAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET ACROSS TO PEOPLE. SLOW COMBAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A LOW DOLLAR ENTRY LEVEL COMBAT CLASS TO GET YOUNG BLOOD INTO THE SPORT OF COMBAT BEFORE ALL THE OLDTIMERS ARE GONE AND COMBAT WITH IT. JERRY

> You are correct Jim.
>It was SUPPOSED to be an entry level event to
>get more people interested in combat.

Well, Marvin, I was actively competing when AMA Slow was added to the rule book, and my own recollection is that there were folks in clubs who flew "some" combat when it got started, but were just not up to staying in it as the speeds and expense escalated (old guys like I am now, with slowed reflexes, maybe). The kill was eliminated to reduce mid-airs, but even back then it seemed there were more mid-airs going after knots in slow than in fast.

>When all the top guns of fast combat started flying slow, then
>got what THEY thought were better rules, the beginners and
>newbies got back out and so today, there are only a few flying
>the event. People will NOT fly an event that they do not want
>to.

I think that some old guys like we are may well start flying the Speed Limit stuff, using older competition equipment, just using low-pitched props to slow down, and we do have the old engines, but those won't be what newer fliers will have access to. So like I said earlier, I didn't want to dig out 36X's (which did pull the VooDoos of their day at 90-100, so also would have to be propped down some), and we don't have any Mark III's, IV's, or VI's any longer (don't ask).

If the Magnum XL-25 runs strongly enough, it's reasonably priced. The Thunder Tiger Pro, of course, has the benefit of being true chrome instead of nickel, although it's not priced quite as low as the Magnum..

The last couple of years , i have been dropping by some of the slow-slow events and have noticed several Nelsons being used . A ton of offset, wide flat pitched props and fast combat type of planes. At least they still have to fly no more than 80 MPH (or 75). K, you are close enough to correct about the onset of slow combat that I won't argue. I've got a lot of old magazines that I often go back and read, and it is very interesting. The most interesting is the attitudes of some individuals back then, and what their attitudes are today. All I will say is..... What goes around gomes around. Get what I mean?
Bigiron

I have to admit that this a shame, the first combat meet I ever attendid was the first ever L.A. money nats, a tripple elimination for fast planes, man was it cool the models ranged from own design scratch builts to slicers, gotchas and monobooms to the outright, wild Barry Baxter' planes looked like large FAI ships while another guy used flitestreak wings as a base, one guy even brought a nemesis to compete and did quite well with it, there were 4 engines , hoffelt, TWA, cippola and fox, most models flew in the 112 to 116 mph range with 1 or 2 hoffelt powerd monobooms touching 120 there were 62 entrants (I think) and fun was had all,now with the new shut rules that states the shut off must attach to the leadouts, wich means that about 1/2 the planes I saw are now illeagal unless you can figure out how to hook a shut off to internal leadouts ,now I fear all contests will be cookie cutter planes all the same basic design with nelsons up front no diversity, such a shame.
dw

>means that about 1/2 the
>planes I saw are now
>illeagal unless you can figure
>out how to hook a
>shut off to internal leadouts

Most people (in the Northwest, anyway) use _external_ line-tension shutoffs. Basically, they run a loop of fishing line from one eyelet, through the shutoff, and back to the other eyelet. With tension applied to the lines, the shutoff is held open.

You can buy them from Mejzlik (they are name after Roy Glenn) or adapt a Fourmost long-wire shutoff. Cartier has discussed thius approach at least 3 times in his column in Flying Models.

hmmmm. Are we broken?

We are not broken, it has just been sort of quiet this week.

Jerry

>I have to admit that this
>a shame, the first combat
>meet I ever attendid was
>the first ever L.A. money
>nats, a tripple elimination for
>fast planes, man was it
>cool the models ranged from
>own design scratch builts to
>slicers, gotchas and monobooms to
>the outright, wild Barry Baxter'
>planes looked like large FAI
>ships while another guy used
>flitestreak wings as a base,
>one guy even brought a
>nemesis to compete and did
>quite well with it, there
>were 4 engines , hoffelt,
>TWA, cippola and fox, most
>models flew in the 112
>to 116 mph range with
>1 or 2 hoffelt powerd
>monobooms touching 120 there were
>62 entrants (I think) and
>fun was had all,now with
>the new shut rules that
>states the shut off must
>attach to the leadouts, wich
>means that about 1/2 the
>planes I saw are now
>illeagal unless you can figure
>out how to hook a
>shut off to internal leadouts
>,now I fear all contests
>will be cookie cutter planes
>all the same basic design
>with nelsons up front no
>diversity, such a shame.
>dw

It's no big deal at all. Most shutoffs that hook up to the leadouts use a piece of dacron line that goes to the leadout clips. Since the clips are external, it'll work, even if the leadouts are inside the wing.

The people who have problems are those who use no leadouts at all, who hook up the lines directly to the bellcrank.

WELL DONT LAUGH BUT I AM RUNNING OLD S/T G21'S, K&B COMBAT GH'S, AND FOX MARK'S WITH SUCTION FED CHICKEN HOPPER TANKS AND MONGOOSE STYLE PLANES. I AM GOING TO BE PLAYING AROUND ALOT THOUGH WITH PROP SELECTION TILL I CAN FIND THE RIGHT SPEED. I AM STARTING OUT WITH YELLOW TORNADO 8X8'S AND WORKING FROM THERE. I ALSO HAVE TWO FOAM PLANES WITH FOX .35 STUNTS ON THEM THAT I PURCHASED FROM A GUY FROM NEW JERSEY AND HE SAID THAT THEY WILL RUN BETWEEN 75-80MPH BUT I HAVEN'T REALLY TRIED THEM MUCH YET.
HAVE FUN JERRY

Iskandar,

October, huh? Count on me. I'll build a couple Lighthawks just for the occassion, and I already have the BigMig 061's. They're new though, and I need to know how you break yours in. I picked up an AME 049, as well...same advice needed. Do they break in differently from the BigMigs? I'll put that on one of the planes. I imagine there are plenty of 1/2A streamers left from the Nats?

Dave Decker is the guy from Muncie (or Anderson) whose last name you can never remember. He flies some 1/2A Combat, and I would think he'd love to be there (he's already there).

>Iskandar,
>
>October, huh? Count on me.
> I'll build a couple
>Lighthawks just for the occassion,
>and I already have the
>BigMig 061's. They're new
>though, and I need to
>know how you break yours
>in. I picked up
>an AME 049, as well...same
>advice needed. Do they
>break in differently from the
>BigMigs? I'll put that
>on one of the planes.
> I imagine there are
>plenty of 1/2A streamers left
>from the Nats?
>
>Dave Decker is the guy from
>Muncie (or Anderson) whose last
>name you can never remember.
> He flies some 1/2A
>Combat, and I would think
>he'd love to be there
>(he's already there).
>
>"Doesn't play well with others"
>Denny Malott

Yup, plenty of streamers left!

The Bigmig .061s don't need much of a breakin - I used Tornado
Nylon 5x3 props, and they started with the spring starter right
away. One was blowing plugs (expensive at $5 a shot) but I fixed that with one shim.

The AME .049, on the other hand, needs a lot of break-in. You might need a starter to get it going initially. They like the same prop cut down to about 4 1/4".

I'm cutting some new foam wings - should have some Lighthawk-ish models by then.