Little Missle - OTS Rules Question

OK, Someone (the Big Lizard or Doug M. maybe) mentioned this plane a while back. I have the build started, and have some questions.

The plans show a single wheel under the nose, about half of which is visible. It is suggested for "landing on pavement".

My understanding on the OTS rules for LG say that they can be stretched as long as they are in the original location. I plan to extend the single wheel to where the prop will have clearance for take off.

Sorry, but I no longer have a set of OTS rules, so I am asking for a ruling on this!

Thanks\Bill <><

I was just going to quote you the PAMPA rules on undercarriages, but I don't think they exactly and precisely address the Little Missle situation. I may build another one of these sometime. If I do I will add a long-enough two wheel gear exiting at about the point where the wheel is located on the plan. I think that would fit the spirit of the PAMPA rules, although one could quibble.

Jim,
From what I remember from the OTS rules, it does mention allowing LG to be extended, etc., as long as the placement and type of gear is basically unchanged. Am I right?
I plan on using a McCoy 098 which I believe will power this one just fine.
Thanks!
Bill <><

Bill your ok.

The way I understand it, shortening the main gear or extending the tail gear (skid?) are not acceptable, as they improve the potential for landing well beyond the original designs capabilities.

Generally, unless you are a "Contendah" for first place, you could get away with just about anything you want. It's supposed to be FUN, after all.

Bill,

Hi!

In the original PAMPA OTS rules we included mention of models which had either NO, or drop-off, landing gear. The idea for the drop-offs -- a no-no as "lost parts in flight" is a DQ -- was permanently mounted gear resembling the drop-off in style and placement. Nobody really got torqued about it, so with yr Little Missle, one or two wheel gear enough to get the prop clear should be fine.

Of course, you could take a hand launch, and blow a few "Takeoff and Level Flight" points... (Be sure to let the judges know ahead of time if you go that way...)

Hi Guys, Thanks for the info!!

Lou, the plans show an "optional" wheel submerged in the fuselage ,under the tank, which amounts to a "belly skid".
I will go with removable LG, both one and two wheel, so if anyone gets their panties in a wad I can do any of the options.

Thanks!
Bill <><

From the current PAMPA OTS rules:

"3.1 Allowable Modifications
"3.1.1 Undercarriage
.......
"3.1.1.2 Landing Gear. Landing gear material may be changed. The landing gear length need not exactly duplicate the original, providing the model's angle of attack (on the ground) closely approximates the orginal design. Landing gear must exit in the same location as the original design. It shall not be relocated to provide for perceived advantages in ground handling.
"3.1.1.3 Undercarriage addition
"3.1.1.3.1 Model designs with drop-off gear. Where drop-off gear was a feature of the original model design, contestants should preserve the appearance and location of the original gear, but must disable tis drop-off function for competition. Drop-off landing gear will not be permitted.
"3.1.1.3.2 Model designs with no takeoff/landing gear. If the original model design did not have a takeoff/landing gear, the design of the added takeoff/landing gear must be consistent with the prevailing takeoff/landing gear used on similarly configured model designs of the era. "

The original PAMPA OTS rules were modified several years ago to include the provisions quoted above. These rules modifications were incorporated to allow the many designs from before 1952 that were not designed with any sort of a "conventional" landing gear to be eligible in PAMPA OTS events providing they were equiped with such a conventional gear.

These rules perhaps do not address every conceivable situation, but they should act as decent guidelines to follow in providing a "suitable" landing gear for those OTS designs that otherwise did not have a landing gear that would allow for an unassisted takeoff. There are some OTS designs that only had a "landing wheel" that could not have allowed an unassisted takeoff. These OTS rules were written to allow a more conventional gear to such a design.

Hope this answers some questions.

Keith

Why, particularly, is drop off landing gear dis-allowed if the original used something similar?

I'd thought of safety issues, but speed guys still use dollys, so I discounted that.

>Why, particularly, is drop off landing gear dis-allowed if
>the original used something similar?
>
>I'd thought of safety issues, but speed guys still use
>dollys, so I discounted that.
>
>
>From somewhere near Parkville, Mo.
>William Crane
>AMA 6733

I do not know the entire rationale for the prohibition of drop-off landing gear for OTS. I would suspect it is primarily a safety issue. Just because the speed events use dollies is no justification to allow a drop-off gear in stunt. Most speed contests are run or should be run in a cage. If there is not a cage, there should be a barricade to keep dollies from rolling outside the circle area. (I have ben hit in the foot by a rolling dolly and it is not fun.) The dollies "normally" come off as soon as the model/dolly are a few inches off the ground and the path of the dolly is "somewhat predictable". Most provisions I have seen for a drop-off gear make its drop-off point less predictable, so that you can have a metal contraption flying off of the model at a fair speed from some altitude and can strike the ground (or a person) at some distance from the circle. Common sense should not allow that to happen.

It would be neat not to have to carry the weight of the landing gear and the airplane would look neat in the air. But I not think that watching a landing without a landing gear would look that good. For sport flying, hand launching and landing without a gear is fine, particularly on grass. Landing without a landing gear just does not seem to be appropriate for any stunt event.

Teehee, Finally something to make flying stunt exciting for Joe Average. Flying projectiles. Heck, maybe we should have parts designed to come off at several different times during the flight? Not that I think flying pattern is boring. It's a challenge for sure, but after the first 5 or 6 people go up to do the same thing, well, it does get tedious.

Okay, I can hang with not letting things come flying off for safety.