RINGMASTER-S1A KIT

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-04 AT 04:36 PM (CDT)
 
TRUE or FALSE; is it O.T.S. legal?
TRUE or FALSE; if {not} is it then "CLASSIC" legal?
TRUE or FALSE; if modified w/wing mounted landing-gear
& in-board 1/2cowl "stiffener" it's now just a profile?

Seriously,Mike
Thank-You every-one, for your INPUTS,
Didn't mean to get anyone's "feathers" ruffled,
just wanted to KNOW more before investin'$$$ on a KIT
Mike

Sorry Mike,

False on all three counts!

I know in Classic there is a clause to allow different construction techniques as long as the outlines are maintained. Isn't OTS similar?
If that is the case, then as long as the S-1A maintains the outlines, it is at least Classic legal. Wing gear will detract points.
Classic loses points for deviation from the original, but not "illegal".
Bill <><

I thought the S1-A came out around 1980. What is the cutoff for Classic?

Currell,
I am not familiar with the outlines of the s-1a. Never had one.
But, if the outlines are the same, technically it shuold be allowed in Classic, with a points reduction for fidelity possibly, because different "building techniques" are allowed.
Is the plan form the same for the S-1 and S-1A?
Bill <><

>Currell,
>I am not familiar with the outlines of the s-1a. Never had
>one.
>But, if the outlines are the same, technically it shuold be
>allowed in Classic, with a points reduction for fidelity
>possibly, because different "building techniques" are
>allowed.
>Is the plan form the same for the S-1 and S-1A?
>Bill <><

The S-1 and S-1A RMs are the same airplane. The S-1A has a C tube wing. The span, chord and airfoil are the same but you don't get the covering sag as you do on the S-1 due to the sheeted LE. I find the S-1A also builds a little lighter. I've had one for over a dozen years and will keep repairing and recovering it.

I brought this S-1A to a contest where the CD said he'd allow it to be flown in OTS if none of the other pilots objected. My flying abilities didn't pose a threat to anyone. I flew my S-1 instead.

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-04 AT 07:39 AM (CDT)
 
I thought it was OTS legal, if built from the original sterling kit with no mods???

I guess I'm mistaken....

Maybe I'm not familiar with the S1A though. I'm taking about the original version...

LAST EDITED ON Mar-30-04 AT 08:10 AM (CDT)
 
S-1 Ringmaster: solid leading edge- OTS Legal

S-1A Ringmaster: Planked leading edge: NOT OTS legal

Stuntin' Ringmaster: Planked leading edge: Not OTS legal.

The Stunting Ringmaster is a classic example of what happens when the manufacturer (Estes) doesn't pay attention to market demographics.
It should have been made OTS Legal.

De, Classic? Why/why not?
Thanks!
Bill <><

Because the S1A kit didn't appear until after the cut-off date.

Jake

Classic or not I don't understand why anyone would even think about flying a Ringmaster in Classic.

>Classic or not I don't understand why anyone would even
>think about flying a Ringmaster in Classic.

They're an Optomist?

Jake

Well, Bob, just a few years ago Roy "Mr. Ringmaster" Phillip was doing very well in OTS, Classic, Pampa, and Profile with one Ringmaster.
Bill <><

>Well, Bob, just a few years ago Roy "Mr. Ringmaster" Phillip
>was doing very well in OTS, Classic, Pampa, and Profile with
>one Ringmaster.

I saw him walk away with first in OTS, plus awards in Classic, PAMPA Advanced and Profile in the same contest all with a well worn, battle hardened Ringmaster with a Fox .35. The man could flat out fly the daylights out of it. I bet it wasn't very light either.

This was at the first contest I ever attended, and I was flat out amazed...

One Charlotte meet he showed up with a few Ringmaster variants including a Sportster. He could fly them all. The one you saw was eventually lost, IIRC, due to just wearing it out. A true sense of the rule of picking one design and sticking with it! Never saw him fly anything that wasn't a Ringmaster.
Lost track of Roy when his wife passed.
A Gentleman in the truest sense. Wish I knew where he is!
Bill <><

>Classic or not I don't understand why anyone would even
>think about flying a Ringmaster in Classic.

I have seen some very good flying Ringmasters. Maybe it was mainly the pilot, but still...

Limit the elevator throw, make the nose reasonably rigid, built pretty light.

Phew! I thought that my S1 was OTS legal. That's good!

I hope to build a "classic" ship soon. That will give me one OTS, one Classic and one Profile/Modern. Then I'll just need a full bodied modern and I can make myself dizzy at every contest by doing FOUR events

The airfoil is different, since the S-1 sags some in between the ribs, and the S1-A does not. How much this means as far a flying ability is concerned...I don't know. The center planking also goes out more more rib on the S-1A, too.

I believe all S1-As have the clear canopy. I think some late S-1 kits have this too, but am not completely sure.

What is the Classic cutoff date? I have mags at home with the S-1A Sterling intro at about 1980.

This is a REAL hard argument.....the S1 and S1A share very similar rib profiles, as well as body/tail feather shape. I pretty much think that they are CERTAINLY Classic legal, and I have allowed them in OTS.

Before you jump on me, look at the BARNSTORMER.....the original had NO PLANKING visible on the wing. The tissue began at the fuse edge. The plans and kit show two stringers on top...one at about high point, yet the "C" tube version has won several major events, CD'ed by folks far more intolerant than I.

See Ya

>This is a REAL hard argument.....the S1 and S1A share very
>similar rib profiles, as well as body/tail feather shape. I
>pretty much think that they are CERTAINLY Classic legal, and
>I have allowed them in OTS.
>
>Before you jump on me, look at the BARNSTORMER.....the
>original had NO PLANKING visible on the wing. The tissue
>began at the fuse edge. The plans and kit show two
>stringers on top...one at about high point, yet the "C" tube
>version has won several major events, CD'ed by folks far
>more intolerant than I.
--------------------------------------------------------

The S1A Ringmaster is not OTS legal! you can do anything you want at the contest you are CD'ing. But it still doesn't make an S1A Ringmaster OTS legal. MY scource? John Miske.

>>Before you jump on me, look at the BARNSTORMER.....the
>original had NO PLANKING visible on the wing. The tissue
>began at the fuse edge. The plans and kit show two
>stringers on top...one at about high point, yet the "C" tube
>version has won several major events, CD'ed by folks far
>more intolerant than I.

>Peabody
That may be true for the original Barnstormer, but by 1952, the airplanes being built had sheeted leading edges. That makes this configuration OTS legal, no matter what the original (1947?) looked like. The S-1A kit was much later - no comparison.
Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!

Currell,
The Classic cut off is Dec. 31, 1969.
BUT, the rules state that alternative construction methods can be used as long as the plan form, airfoil, moments, are not changed.
Therefore, the S1-A should be legal if those things are not changed. Kit date does not matter if it is the same lay out as the original since alternative methods of construction are allowed. ie.: Brodak kits are legal for the Circus Prince, Super Clown, and Flying Clown.
These have a square leading edge and capstrips. Definitely a different method of construction as to the originals. Dixon's "Kept Foam" wings are another example of the same thing, and are allowed.
As I read the rule, then the S1-A, if it is a "numerical copy" of the S-1, it should be classic legal.
What am I missing?
Bill <><

I don't think the airfoil on the S1A is the same as the S1 which had the reflex curve. I know that on the later Jr. Ring is not the same as the early version.

Jake

Thanks, Jake!
I have never seen the S1-A kit, just a few Ringmaster S-1.
I definitely see scenarios where newer building techniques are welcomed from a safety/longevity standpoint.
Some, "kept foam" being one, (not a knock in any way on Tom Dixon, it is a pretty quick method to building straight wings) seems to circumvent the "spirit" of the event for me.
In Classic, though, that (airfoil differences) *might* mean only a deduction in fidelity points.
Bill <><

Hay All, The cut off date for Classic in 12/31/69. The S1a is not legal for anything but PAMPA Stunt. As to why anyone would ever fly a Ringmaster in anything well this is a sport and any of us may dream all they want! Roy came to Cleveland about 10 years ago and won Advanced and OTS with his Ringaster! All the big guys just looked on in amazement at how a Fox .35 and a Ringmaster wamped everybody! And if all the rest of your fleet is sick why not fly the Ringmaster any way? And don't forget that the best prop for Roy was/is a 9.5 X 6 Master Air Screw!

Yup, that would be Roy. And consider this: He likely got very few appearance points to boot.

Just goes to show that the pilot is more than half of it.

As an aside, many years ago I built a Sterling P-51. I added a chunk of balsa to the top of the fuse from the canopy back to the tail, then faired it to look like a "B" model rather than a "D". Later, I was told this mod disqulified it as OTS legal. Go figure.

greedy

Have to agree with Bill Little on this one. Different construction techniques are allowed in OTS. Granted a stock S1-a is not really in the spirit of the rules, But it has the same outlines as the S1. It would be legal if you reflexed the ribs slightly as on the S1.

The S1a is definitely stronger(allowed). That it also happens to be easier to build light is a plus.

My second Ringmaster, circa 1963, had a clear canopy, but it was too hard for this teenager to make it fit the top of the fuse. I whacked out a solid canopy, like my original version and carried on. The last one I bought in 1977 had a solid block. I'm sure it was cheaper for Sterling to put a small piece of wood inside the box, than to pull a plastic canopy.

I don't remember the S1A, but my newest kit from Estes has changed the airfoil. It's no good for Classic or OTS, IMO.

Long live the S1 "Brick". It sure did seem bigger when I was a kid

Ron King

Making a "BRICK" fly good, sure has its level of satisfaction!! I fly mine just a tiny tad tail heavy with ok results. Paul

I am looking at CAD plans for an S-1, actual "plans" (actually instructions, with pictures) from the Sterling S-1 kit, a completed, flying S-1, and my own S-1A, partially scratch but partially kit, still uncovered...two papers, two planes.

jake: there is a hint of reflexivity shown on the CAD S-1 plans, but it is nothing extreme like an early Kenhi pollywag. If you look at my built S-1 model itself, you wouldn't notice it, if indeed it is there.

My S-1A framed up wing kind of has it, and kind of does not. In other words, some ribs are essentially straight in the aft portion, and others just may have a whiff of reflexivity. This is a kit S1-A wing.

I would say, then, that the airfoil shapes, as far as ribs go, are mighty close, S-1 vs S-1A.

Again, as others have pointed out, the S-1 would have sag between the ribs in the early stages, and the S-1A, since it is sheeted, would not. And I don't know what the overall effect would be.

If anyone else can go grab their R. models, kits, plans, etc, please go get them.