Old Time Stunt?

LAST EDITED ON Jul-04-04 AT 11:43 AM (CDT)
 
Just curious as to how it can really be a Old Time Stunt event if modern engines are being used? The only event that is actually correct in this regard is the ignition powered planes. I don't feel that a Humongous or whatever being powered by a PA or Jett is really in tune with the event. Why don't we give more points to a plane that is powered by a old Forster or any engine that is from that era? Seems like this would truly be more Old Time Stunt.

Bill

I agree with you!! Also the use of carbon fiber or foam to get lighter and stronger, or slight changes to the gear or airfoil etc etc etc. There are VERY FEW who fly Old Time stunr with rhe true inrent to replicate the way things were then. And even fewer who even manage to place in any of the contests because of the others.

Bigiron

I agree also. I try to as best as I can to have my OTS planes from that era. It a "FUN" event. One of the things I see why the newer engines are used is because they can use a muffler. AS for changing the airfoil...BAD.
Fidelity POINTS should be added to OTS

Scott(tell it like it is)Riese

With a caveat being adding some sort of limiting factor to avoid it becoming a "scale" event. Also, should there be a bonus for "authentic" stuff? Spending $80 for an authentic set of mint very old wheels or whatever, to get more points will make it a money event (the guy who spends the most or has the most old stuff laying around wins).

For what it's worth, although it may not sound like it from the above paragraph, I think staying with the "spirit" of the event and low tech is appropriate. It's a hard thing to put into rules though. A new Fox 35 should score as well (wrt to fidelity) as a rare mid 50's engine.

Tools

It is not "Why don't they . . .". If you are a PAMPA member then it is we, not they. If you think the event should be changed, submit a rules proposal. I have submitted a rules change proposal to give a 5 point bonus for running a diesel engine. We shall see how it fares.

I stand corrected! I have changed the "they" to "we". I do think that going to points given for period correct wheels is a extreme example. Was giving thought more to just the power train and the plane. Old bell cranks, control horns, tanks, and such would indeed take this to the out of control.

Bill

> Was giving thought more to just the
>power train and the plane.

OTS is typically a "scored fun-fly" event, not a die-hard competition, for most. Not a tremendous amount of fun to have to track down, buy at eBay prices, and then use, old motors like McCoys, etc. There are no modern, currently available, equivelents, so if you want to fly it, you have to use modern engines. And of course, the performance is far, far, higher.

>> Was giving thought more to just the
>>power train and the plane.
>
> OTS is typically a "scored fun-fly" event, not a
>die-hard competition, for most. Not a tremendous amount of
>fun to have to track down, buy at eBay prices, and then use,
>old motors like McCoys, etc. There are no modern, currently
>available, equivelents, so if you want to fly it, you have
>to use modern engines. And of course, the performance is
>far, far, higher.
>
> Brett

Brett

Does the new Upland Kit of El Diablo meet OT ?

the fuselage is wider for modern tanks and the elevator / stab is 1/2" higher of the thrust line. or is the changes ok?

And OTS Nobler kits or models are not wider to accommodate current production tanks? If you are afraid that your LD model may not be OTS legal, build the clank tank as described in the original plan... And use an orig. veco horn, try a 1/16th push rod, etc..

W.

I think you've captured the theme correctly. Some updates such as mufflers and safety thong on the handle are acceptable, but airfoil changes should be on the other end of the spectrum......unacceptable. Once the airfoil and/or numbers change....it is NOT the same airplane and shouldn't even qualify for OTS.

Of course, adjustable leadouts would make it completely illegal.

OK, after all the arguning, maybe you (the generic "you", meaning several of you) ought to read the rules before making other proposals. For instance, airfoil changes are NOT allowed. No exterior changes to the ship are allowed. But it is the plane, we are flying, not the engine. So internal changes are allowed, and no specs were ever made to rules as such for most designs. And, yes, adjustable leadouts and tip weight boxes are made for practicality. The Old Time boys DID have adjustable leadouts and such. They just had to cut into the plane to do it. Isn't it easier to make it adjustable. If you wish to add a hatch to make the pushrod adjustable, that is fine. But if you shorten the inboard wing, change the flap, change the attitude of the plane on the ground or the location of the gear, that is NOT acceptable.

But make any rules proposal you want. But why complain about what is without proposing first? I think it is much better to ask, "What do you think about this rule change?" rather than simply say "The rules are all wrong." Sometimes we can find out our ideas are not needed or even wrong. Sometimes we find that they can be an improvement and then we can forward the proposal. But asking for period pieces to be used just adds to cost and is not in the spirit of what is presently proposed.

Of course there are different rules for OTS around the world. The bonuses (or detractions) as discussed here are incorporated in some rules. The PAMPA rules are fairly specific about what you can and cannot change. For example, you cannot change moments and airfoil, but you can make control system modifications, such as adjustable leadouts.

One thing often done is to have a "Spirit of '52" or "Spirit of '46" trophy, where authenticity is the criterion.

OTS is multifacited. For some it is a relaxed event with a simpler pattern. For others it is a Living Museum with accurate replication the criterion. I like to have the only one on the field and have it fly the pattern in a reliable and recognizable manner, so I am not as purist as I might be.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-04-04 AT 05:54 PM (CDT)
 
Dave,
We always had adjustable lead outs... but we used an Exacto knive to do it! That is why adjustable leadouts are allowed.

All of this is nice enough to want to fly with the old accessories and engines but I am a firm believer in mufflers. Not that I don't like the sound of an unmuffled engine, some one surely else will complain...another spot to fly gone. I have recently starting using plastic tanks because they are easier to use and get than metal ones. What about props...I think the APC is one of the ugliest props ever made but they perform so well. What about finish? All in all, this event is what brought me back into control line. Just have fun, every time "we" start a new event all this stuff about rules and points creeps in. What a competitive bunch we are. Are we going to play with our "toys" or just fly the heck out of them? Being a purest souldn't stop you from building and flying that vintage model you have always wanted to build. Imposing restrictions on others may only limit the event further. 5 or 10 points for the "Spirt of the Event" should not be out of line. Many of the glow engines are still very affordable today, very few had sucess with ignition back in the "good old days". It was the glow engine that most of us remember more fondly. The limits of glow engines would be down to under a dozen makers or so. I have been guilty of using an FP 40 on a Humungous but am now thinking of using a 1969 Fox .59 or Enya .45 6001. These still are not really OT engines, so it is hard to say where is the beginning and the end. I also think many models don't get modeled because they aren't "winners" and there are a few that fit into OT that came after the cut-off, the PDQ Cirlcle King comes to mind. Who will make and fly it in classic when so many other planes are better fliers? 85% of all CL modelers compete as compared to only 5% of the RC flyers, they continue to grow and attract new fliers, we should do the same. The OT event should be one that all can compete in and have fun. Flying PA is hard enough. Jim J.

I have just recently returned to flying C/L and am not a competitor, but I did work the last two VSC's and I did not see a lot of the "new engine" stuff in OTS. In 2003, Bart Klapinski using a Fox 35 powerd Yates Madman just beat out John Wright using a McCoy 40 on a Barnstormer. This year, Larry Foster won with a Fox 35 powered Jamison, beating Charlie Reeves" Fox 60 powered Victory and John Wright's ever present Barnstormer. Of the 63 contestants at this year's VSC, 20 used Fox 35's. There were also a scattering of McCoys, and the rare entries of Madewell, Atwood, Orwick, K&B, and a Forster. True, there are some new engines used, but they don't seem to provide an real advantage. This is not true, however in Classic where the top spots are dominated by Aero Tigers. I'm not sure from the results that a rules change is required. The various "Spirit" awards do recognize particular efforts to duplicate the "good old days".
Steve
The older I get, the better I used to fly!

Part of the problem with era correct engines is that many are now collectors items, not available or way too expensive. I have just finished a 1949 polywog Chief by copying a kit. In it I have a Veco bellcrank, Veco control horns, Veco wheels (heavy darn things), a Veco .35, a Veco 9-6 prop, a modified Veco fuel tank, veco decals (replicas) but no Aerogloss or Comet or Testors dope. Now I'm trying to find a muffler for the engine. It took me three months just to find the right engine. I also built a 1949 "Super Looper" and it took a year and a half to find a rear venturi Forrester .35 for it and two years to find a tank to fit this silly plane, but it does loops and is hairy fun to fly, not at all competitive. Many OTS models are foam wings, modern engines and very competitve and not in the true spirit because the flyer actually wants to win. So be it. I do it for nostalgia and the fun. Last two contests there were hardly any in OTS events, 2 at one and 6 at the other and these two contests usually have 10 to 15 in this event, while Classic seems to be increasing in numbers. A message there????

LAST EDITED ON Jul-04-04 AT 07:42 PM (CDT)
 
Ah, Ty.....
We sure had a LOT of fun at that Huntersville meet at the bottom of the list!!!!! I know I had a TON of fun.
I know that I ain't gonna take out Charlie Reeves and Sir Thomas of Luper (at least not yet), but that wasn't my purpose in entering anyway! I wanted to fly an OTS plane in a competetive setting with a semi old time engine and just FLY.
I think the Super Clown (done in the "original PDQ" paint scheme) and a Red Head McCoy 29 fit my bill (no pun intended) just right.
Next time I will have a Barnstormer with a Fox 35, and maybe the cheek cowl version. Maybe not. Or I "could" use my late 40's early 50's K&B/Veco 35 for motivation.
Either way I WILL have FUN in OTS. And I expect you to do the same!
Bill <><

HI Bill. You are right about us having fun. Beware of the Barnstormer sharp leading edge, that thing just stalls if pulled out too fast, and use very little (no pun) elevator-20 degrees+/-. Guess how I learned this, it took 6 Barnstormers!! A .25 or .29 would be a better engine for it. I used a K&B .32 in one and it leaped into the air. Talk about too much power.
I just hope those that go for the gold in OTS don't spoil the fun event it is. I was shocked to see only two entries at Marietta and only 6 of us at Huntersville. It was better at Brodaks, which was to be expected. The only thing I didn't like at Brodaks was the ARF event as a separate event and broken down into 4 classes. Having an ARF event for Expert and Advanced seems a little silly. It fits into classic, no BOM, no points for finish, no big deal. This event took up a lot of time that could or should have been used for Intermediate and begginner profile, which suffered as a result.

I wouldn't want to suggest or presume that the contest that's run in Australia is the way to go, but it does encourage exploring earlier designs and using vintage motors by way of the bonus point table copied below.
Personally I think the cut off is too late and should be restricted to 1952 as we also have a separate classic competition with a cut off date of 65 and no static or other bonus points.
The good flyers will always still win, but it's nice to compete in the static points.
It's one of the reasons I enjoy flying OTS here in Oz. It's not simply just a flying contest.
We still don't see too many ignition entries though!

Cheers John

Part of the Australian Vintage Stunt rules

Points For Construction
Building Workmanship Max 20 points
Finish Max 20 points
Use of original materials Max 20 points
Adherence to original plan Max 20 points

b) Age of Models

Points are awarded on a sliding scale as follows:
1945 - 16 1949 - 12 1953 - 8 1957 - 4
1946 - 15 1950 - 11 1954 - 7 1958 - 3
1947 - 14 1951 - 10 1955 - 6 1959 - 2
1948 - 13 1952 - 9 1956 - 5 1960 - 1

Bonus for biplanes 5 points
Bonus for fixed flaps 5 points

c) Documentation
Competitors must provide proof of age. Points shall be awarded as follows:

2 - 87

Excellent proof: Date and authenticity of evidence is beyond doubt
(e.g. dated plan or magazine published
plan)..................................................10 points
Good proof: Supporting evidence indicating likelihood of
authenticity (e.g. magazine article giving dated
reference) ...........................................7 points.
Fair proof: e.g. published list of old time designs plus undated
plan.....................................................5 points
Poor proof: e.g. undated plan alone or no proof
presented)...........................................3 points

Note: photocopies of original documents are acceptable.

d) Age of engines - Add progressive points for increasing age of engines in the following scale, with age validated by suitable documentation.

1944 27 1949 19 1954 14 1959 9 1964 4
1945 25 1950 18 1955 13 1960 8 1965 3
1946 23 1951 17 1956 12 1961 7 1966 2
1947 21 1952 16 1957 11 1962 6 1967 1
1948 20 1953 15 1958 10 1963 5 1968 0

Full points, revelent to the particular year, shall be awarded for reproduction engines.

Bonus for spark ignition ............................................. 10 points
Bonus for models powered by engine 2.5 cc or less ... 10 points

Lots of extra work for a "FUN" event......HOWEVER, it might be the way to go.

Scott(looks good to me)Riese

I must have missed something here as I haven't noticed that there has really been any arguing? From what I have read the posts have just been opinions and no one has really disagreed with anyone else. My original post was just a observation from the sidelines at contests. I don't compete as I don't like flying over asphalt. I have collected alot of the engines that would qualify for this event and haven't spent big bucks doing it. Meca swap meets and even Da Bay are a good source of these engines.

Bill

I think we all have opinions, and that sometimes leads to the problem. But my opinion--I, personally, like it the way it is. The planes are supposed to be as per the specs of the day in which they were designed or flown. That means if they had a long inboard wing, you keep it that way. If they had a skinny airfoil, you keep it that way. But it is exterior, only, so if the wing was designed with a flaw that led to its folding every thirteen flights or so, you are allowed to change the structure internally to make it stronger. Essentially, no one is going to look inside the plane, so how you construct it is not the point, just that it is an honest representation of what was designed or built in "those" days. We can use modern materials, no problem. I can use silkspan instead of silk, or the other way around if I so choose. And if you want to use cloth hinges, you can, and maybe go for the "Spirit of (whatever)" award. I would prefer to use nylon barrel hinges in my modern representation and a modern engine. You can use your choice, and if you want to keep it "original" using the same engine used "back then", you are free to do so. I would just prefer to eliminate the problems encountered back then by using modern advances.

But, that's my opinion...and that is what our rules currently allow.

I flew at Brodak this year and there were close to 30 entries in expert old time and I didn't see any planes that had thick airfoils or other modifications that would improve the performance. Also there were spark ignition flown and they did get the extra points.Some people keep saying its a low key fun fly but I didn't see that, most tried very hard to win and built planes that took a lot of time to build.Some came to fly old time only and put a lot of effort in the event.
Ed

It is always interesting how a thread can go off onto another tangent. Seems to me that all I mentioned was the engines being used. Nothing more, nothing less.

Bill

Back to the original question,. Most OTS planes are being powered by modern engines, like the OS FPS, or Fox 35. As long as the model is EXACTLY a copy of the original, then the motor only has to pull the thing along without crapping out. I appreciate just the plane, and the engine is secondary to the event. Any time you run a Rossi or other Schnurle motor in OTS, you have to tame it down with fuel, prop, or running it slobbering rich. So why not a Fox? This is a period engine and they work pretty well.

Some contests have a separate event for spark ignition planes. Here, an original engine seems appropriate. There are lots of original sparkers available for not much more than the price of a new Schnurle.

Same holds true for alot of the early glows as well.

Bill

I take issue with the thought that OTS should use old motors.....the ability to muffle new powerplants without losing an\y significant performance is a big reason, but I think, too, that the ease of starting/running modern motors boosts participation in the event as well.

There seems to prevail a thought that "having fun" with a "low keyed, informal event" cannot be taken as seriously as a heart attack......

See Ya

Well, just saying OTS will start a whole new thread. I understand what you're saying about the engines and I agree up to a point. Like I mentioned earlier, they are not always available, or just too rare or just too expensive for this event. A fox .29 or .35 is OTS legal in that respect as it came out in this era, albeit a four bolt head and two bolt backplate, but it hasn't really changed all that much since its inception. Same for older pre green head K&B engines, O&R, early McCoys, Foresters (sp-never was sure how they spelled it), and a few others. But most of them were converted from ignition, are gutless, rare or too expensive. So, who flys OTS, just the twenty guys with the older engines??

>I think we all have opinions, and that sometimes leads to
>the problem. But my opinion--I, personally, like it the way
>it is. The planes are supposed to be as per the specs of
>the day in which they were designed or flown. That means if
>they had a long inboard wing, you keep it that way. If they
>had a skinny airfoil, you keep it that way. But it is
>exterior, only, so if the wing was designed with a flaw that
>led to its folding every thirteen flights or so, you are
>allowed to change the structure internally to make it
>stronger. Essentially, no one is going to look inside the
>plane, so how you construct it is not the point, just that
>it is an honest representation of what was designed or built
>in "those" days. We can use modern materials, no problem.
>I can use silkspan instead of silk, or the other way around
>if I so choose. And if you want to use cloth hinges, you
>can, and maybe go for the "Spirit of (whatever)" award. I
>would prefer to use nylon barrel hinges in my modern
>representation and a modern engine. You can use your
>choice, and if you want to keep it "original" using the same
>engine used "back then", you are free to do so. I would
>just prefer to eliminate the problems encountered back then
>by using modern advances.
>
>But, that's my opinion...and that is what our rules
>currently allow.

I gotta agree... I'm building a MARS I hope to take to the really big OTS event next year (I can't even fly the OTS pattern yet...<grin>) and I don't have a "real" old timey engine. The one I plan to use will require some mods to the nose to mount it. other than that it's per the plans... I really do think that's appropriate. If they changed the rules to require an actual "OTS" engine I probably wouldn't get involved.

SO my old time entry 6-8 years ago a Scared Kitten with a C*X Conquest turning a Rev-Up 8-3 at 23K with a silicone tube for a exhaust re director / muffler wasn't in the proper spirit of the event? I had fun and so did my helper Wild Bill. I think some others that were there thought it was funny, probably that I did not crash reading the maneuver schedule cheat sheet in between the maneuvers. I especially appreciated their applause after the end of the second flight in the life of the plane. Course 2 years later with my version of an old time Polish stunt trainer with a Russian diesel was interesting to my helper that year, Larry Scarinzi, when he asked me how it flew as I was fueling and I said I didn't have a clue as this was the first flight. I had fun with that too until it ran out of fuel 2/3rds of the way through the flight. Come to think of it I was still using the same cheat sheet. Some of us just have fun in different ways, as long as it is all fun that is what counts!

>SO my old time entry 6-8 years ago a Scared Kitten with a
>C*X Conquest turning a Rev-Up 8-3 at 23K with a silicone
>tube for a exhaust re director / muffler wasn't in the
>proper spirit of the event?

Larry had one of these, too, except he had "Sacred Kitten" written on the top of it. His used a Russian F2D engine screaming along at 30,000 RPM.

I told him if he scaled it up to .40 sized he could call it a "Scaredy Cat", and a .60 sized one could be called a "Cowardly Lion". Not quite sure what engine you'd use to get into the same "spirit".. Maybe a Jett .50 or something else that can do 20,000 RPM..

Ron: It is always nice to hear of someone building an OTS, especially the Palmer MARS.

I am presently stripping and refinishing a 1952 Palmer Venus. I plan to arrive at VSC next March with the Palmer designs, VENUS, CHIEF 1, HI-BOY.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-08-04 AT 01:31 AM (CDT)
 
If I recall the original Mars had a Fox .35 in it, at least on the plans. But almost all MAN plans had Fox .35 engines shown. Bob may have used a Veco engine in the original, I'll have to reread the article. So any Fox .35 stunt engine will be in the OTS spirit.
Yep, just checkd the August 1952 MAN and it has a Fox .35 in it, but the article says any .29 -.31 with firewall mounting can be used. The Fox is side mounted on the firewall using double nuts and longer back plate screws. Interesting, pre RC type mount.

>I think we all have opinions, and that sometimes leads to
>the problem. But my opinion--I, personally, like it the way
>it is. The planes are supposed to be as per the specs of
>the day in which they were designed or flown. That means if
>they had a long inboard wing, you keep it that way. If they
>had a skinny airfoil, you keep it that way. But it is
>exterior, only, so if the wing was designed with a flaw that
>led to its folding every thirteen flights or so, you are
>allowed to change the structure internally to make it
>stronger. Essentially, no one is going to look inside the
>plane, so how you construct it is not the point, just that
>it is an honest representation of what was designed or built
>in "those" days. We can use modern materials, no problem.
>I can use silkspan instead of silk, or the other way around
>if I so choose. And if you want to use cloth hinges, you
>can, and maybe go for the "Spirit of (whatever)" award. I
>would prefer to use nylon barrel hinges in my modern
>representation and a modern engine. You can use your
>choice, and if you want to keep it "original" using the same
>engine used "back then", you are free to do so. I would
>just prefer to eliminate the problems encountered back then
>by using modern advances.
>
>But, that's my opinion...and that is what our rules
>currently allow.
As far as I can tell the new Kit that upland is selling does not meet
OT because the fusalage is wider so a modern tank can fit and the stab/elevator is 1/2" higher of the thrust line ! or does these changes ok?

PAMPA OTS rules say wider fuselage to accomodate modern 2 in. wide tank is OK. I would move the stab and elevator to where they are 'sposed to be.

I will be glad to supply a hard copy of the PAMPA OTS rules and the 1951-52 AMA Precision Aerobatics rules to anyone who would like to post them on a website.

We have bonus points in the UK for model date and other factors. I have been campaigning for years to abolish them. With contests being won by one or two points, you must gave a 1947 model to be competitive. Lots of models being flown as 1947/8 simply can't be verified as such and you have a real mess.
Jim,
Maybe the US OTS schedule is 'easier' than the AMA schedule, but I can assure you that the BMFA Vintage Schedule that we used until a couple of years back was not easier than the F2B schedule. It took almost a minute longer to fly and some of the manoevres couldn't be done with a normally setup F2B model. We've now simplified the schedule and it is comparable with F2B but still needs more power.

Bill:

Back in the "GOOD OLD DAYS" I had several Zilch's and at least one Barnstormer. Never found out how well they flew till I tried a Mini- Zilch with a modern engine. The Barnstormer is next.

I agree that a purist will try to match the original engine but It seem's to me that old time is more about the planes. Now Ignition is another story...

Fond memories don't keep me from using electric starters either.

All this from someone who think's Ford should have gone out of business when they discontinued the "Flathead" V-8 at the end of the '53 model year.

Jeff W

P.S. : If it's not a Ford V-8, it's an "L-head", not a "Flathead"!

I don't fly in the US and as such my input is pretty much irrelevant to you over there, but to answer Bills original question, I can't help wondering why, when you have 4 levels of Precision Aerobatic classes, beginner, intermediate, advanced and expert plus classic stunt which all use modern muffled motors, why wouldn't you want to go the full Monty and actually use a period engine if you're going to have a go at OTS?
Why else would you want to build one if it isn't to find a use for some of the less than pristine vintage engines you've accumulated that aren't good enough for the display cabinet? The only other good reason I can think of would be the easier flying pattern which is what originally got me started flying any kind of competition aerobatics.

I mean, if you were restoring an old Chevy or Buick, who out there would think of putting a Japanese made V6 motor in it? Or using a Harley chassis with an 1100 Honda Shadow motor in it!!!?? It just doesn't work, so why would you go to all the hassle of building a real nice vintage design and copping out in the engine department, hell, most of these earlier designs had little or no cowling so the engine is out there for everyone to see.
A Stuntwagon or Zilch or any OTS design with a modern motor makes about as much sense to me as a Harley Shadow!

I disagree that all the collectable engines are so expensive, sure they may be if you're wanting a NIB flawless collectors example but that's hardly necessary if you are going to use an engine. Even if you go with a NIB pristine example of a decent 60 ignition motor they are still comparable in price or cheaper than some of the current modern top of the line Stunt 60's.
Lets be honest, they only need one broken out lug or a few file marks or some broken fins and the price drops dramatically!

As for mufflers no one will seriously worry about a bit of extra scratching caused by fitting a clamp on style muffler if the engine isn't in pristine condition. As for loss of power using mufflers, this has always been so and still holds true in most of the engines used for stunt. Okay there are some motors that use varying degrees of sub piston induction and these typically don't fare too well and loose power when a muffler is fitted. But there are lot that aren't and will work just fine with mufflers.

I don't know that I'd like to see the bonus points removed here in Australia as Dave has suggested he like to see in the UK. I'd be concerned that you would wind up with less diversity in model types and fewer of the earlier less aerobatic models with more flyers opting for the better flying legal airframes such as Smoothies and Nobler's, or if not, all the contest winners will be flying those models that have a superior flying edge. At least the bonus system does encourage some experimentation with some of the real early designs, after all, I believe the bonus points were originally added to help offset the poorer flying qualities of those earlier thinner winged unflapped designs
I don't think that substantiating an engines age is that difficult, there's a veritable wealth of detailed information out there. And again, the amount of information that's available on many of the model designs doesn't really come in to the debate if the onus of the proof of the age of the design is left with the competitor and if his documentation. You aren't going to build something if you know you won't be able to prove it's age.

Anyway, that's my fourpence worth!

Anyone interested in flying at our Vintage Stunt day next weekend in Sydney on Saturday the 17th of July is more than welcome. It's a 10 am start at the Peter Board school field. Entry fees are always pretty low and lately we haven't charged at all as we give out certificates rather than trophies. We are also a non-noise sensitive field so mufflers are optional, for now anyway.

Finally a answer I can really relate to! Thankyou John! Haven't put that Triumph 51 to work yet but it will get its day eventually.

Bill

John, nice email. with the exception of engines, some of our oldtime entrants pay little attention to the intent of the rules because they are hotshots that just have to have an edge. Our rules are specific enough to me to penalize these guys or not allow them to fly and in the past I have acted on this belief in our National Championships when I was the event director. Perhaps the event directors have no guts or dont want to hurt the feelings ofthese nere-do-wells. Its in the event dirctors hands but he has to have the courage to enforce the spirit and the letter of the rules. Jon Ramsden
PS- nice to come across you again.

Hi Bill
It's a nice engine, I think you'll like the way it runs, don't forget the ear muffs though, it had a strong note to it.
I'm really pleased you took it as I wouldn't have thought of trying the Pacemaker in the airframe that I took the Atwood out of. It was a bit of a shoe horn act but it's been a very successful union. The extra power transformed the Super Duper Zilch
I've been doing a lot of flying with it and just a couple of weeks ago came third in the New South Wales State Champs
If you hadn't bought the engine I probably wouldn't have finished it, now I'm looking at re engineering the front of my Stuntwagon to take another of my Pacemakers.

Hi John
One of the things we have to do is provide our own documentation, no documentation, no points. Most of us have a full size plan of the model we're flying plus some form of proof of age if the actual plan isn't dated. If you build a model with longer tail skid or the gear moved back or a thicker airfoil or any other blatant performance aide it's going to be picked up at the static judging and you'll lose some points. Same for engine bonus points, you've got to supply your proof or lose points. Makes it difficult to argue with the judge. Keeps it straightforward for the contestant.
Good to get your email.

LAST EDITED ON Jul-11-04 AT 07:51 PM (CDT)
 
>Hi Bill
>It's a nice engine, I think you'll like the way it runs,
>don't forget the ear muffs though, it had a strong note to
>it.
>I'm really pleased you took it as I wouldn't have thought of
>trying the Pacemaker in the airframe that I took the Atwood
>out of. It was a bit of a shoe horn act but it's been a very
>successful union. The extra power transformed the Super
>Duper Zilch
>I've been doing a lot of flying with it and just a couple of
>weeks ago came third in the New South Wales State Champs
>If you hadn't bought the engine I probably wouldn't have
>finished it, now I'm looking at re engineering the front of
>my Stuntwagon to take another of my Pacemakers.
>
>Hi John
>One of the things we have to do is provide our own
>documentation, no documentation, no points. Most of us have
>a full size plan of the model we're flying plus some form of
>proof of age if the actual plan isn't dated. If you build a
>model with longer tail skid or the gear moved back or a
>thicker airfoil or any other blatant performance aide it's
>going to be picked up at the static judging and you'll lose
>some points. Same for engine bonus points, you've got to
>supply your proof or lose points. Makes it difficult to
>argue with the judge. Keeps it straightforward for the
>contestant.
>Good to get your email.
>
>Cheers John

Ron B.
F4Fguy

Hi,John:

I do fly in the U.S. and I wish we had the bonus points for authenticity that would even the playing field for the Flyers who seek to honor the spirit as well as the letter of the rules.The event was created for the purpose of reliving "those golden days of yesteryear",but,like most things in the Good Ol' U.S.A.has been perverted into a form not percieved by it's creators.I know,the rules (U.S.)allow the use of modern engines and such.I know the rules allow internal modification.I know the rules allow modern materials.I also know that you can build a very good airplane without any of these.Most of the designs which are at all suitable for this event are good capable designs.If they weren't they wouldn't have survived as desireable aircraft for the event.Modification? Sure, within the spirit of what would have been done at the time the design was current.If the wings tended to fold after a few flights,it's reasonable to assume that someone would have "fixed"it.In that period they would NOT have installed a foam wing!

As regards engines for O.T.S.;there's absolutely NO reason to use an engine other than a period one.These engines are not scarce ad not particularly expensive.They are also easily restored to better than new condition.I paid less than $100 each for all the vintage engines I have.They are all in excellent running condition.They are ALL easy to start and adjust,whether on spark or glow.Do they have the power of a modern engine of the same displacement?No,but some have much better torque characteristics.The Triumph mentioned above is a case in point .I don't have a .51,but the .49 in my Humongous is easy to start,easy to needle and very reliable.The same is true of most of the others I own,from Dennymites and DeLongs,to Doolings and everything in between.

In My opinion,winning at any cost is TOTALLY inappropriate in OTS.It violates the very fabric of the event.Fly to win? Of course!! But do it within the spirit of the event!

Ron B.

P.S.:Thanks for the inspiration,I may have to build a Super Zilch for my Pacemaker.

This has become a interesting post. I had hoped it would. I don't see anything OTS about a PA or Jett engine that happens to be planted in the front of a old plane. More reliable yes, no argument there.

Bill

I started flying OTS back in the early 80's, and have flown at a number of local contests and been to the last seven VSC's, flew six, judged one. I have not noticed any of the hot-shot win-at-any-cost folks we are criticizing here. I see that there is a good variety of airplanes and engines which are flown by the winners.

The bottom line of the PAMPA OTS rules is, "Above all, the event should be fun." A couple of my friends have just started flying stunt, and have selected OTS as their entry event. One started out flying one of my K&B 4011's, the other is flying a blue engine. They are having a lot of fun! Are you saying that there should be a barrier to keep people like them from having fun; that a person has to get an ancient engine and get it working well before he can enter the sacred realm of OTS. Not in my book!

Having said that, I think appropriate engines are great for the event, and I admire those who have fun producing and flying with them. I've flown OTS with an ED MK II Racer and a glowplug Arden 19, so I've had a bit of that kind of fun myself. But I have had as much fun with TD 09, McCoy redhead 35, K&B 09, ST G20-15 diesel, K&B 4011, Tower 40 (both dieselized and glow).

Again, If you feel strongly about the matter, this is a PAMPA rules proposal year. You can get the form from PAMPA services, and the rules change proceedures as well.

Hi Ron
I couldn't agree more with you on the cost of the engines, and I can't understand why you'd go to all the trouble of building a vintage model and then use a modern motor. My first and most abused Pacemaker cost less than US $30. I certainly put some hours into , but no more than I'd have put into any particular part of an airframe. It's gives me a tremendous sense of satisfaction to get one flick starts out of it.
It's certainly not for me to make assumptions and or recommendations about the contests that are flown in the US, I wouldn't presume to do so but I can say the contests here are flown in a friendly relaxed way and aren't taken too seriously by the competitors, sure most flyers would like to win. But it's also a celebration of the models and motors of yesterday. I wouldn't say that the bonus points has hurt our competition in any way at all and contrary to Dave Days concern about the verification of the early models our points system even takes into consideration this exact grey area of documentation by awarding points for the quality of the documents. 10 for irrefutable proof down to 3 for a plan without proof. That effectively more than halves the age points straight away if your documentation isn't up to scratch.
I must say I was surprised at Dave Days position of wanting to get rid of them in the UK.I have the utmost regard for the information and quality of the web site he generously makes available to us. However,I think it's unappropriated to blame a scoring system for close results, look at the recent F2B world champ scores. Close finishes are just a result of close competitions, nothing more nothing less.

Hey Bill
come back in another 58 years and I'll let you know if the PA's are more reliable!!!!!

Ron before I go,
One thing I would certainly look at on the Pacemaker is the disc rotor, all the engines I've got have come with solid unbalanced discs. I did the first test runs in the Zilch, not on the bench which was a mistake. The vibration was so bad I thought it would tear the airframe apart. Everyone at the field thought it was the prop. Once I'd balanced the disc it ran beautifully and I'm still using the same prop.

Hi Jim
I too started flying vintage stunt as I'd never flown in any form of stunt competitions before and was attracted to the easier pattern. It was vintage stunt that got me more involved in engine collecting, but you guys like us also have the beginner pattern in PA which is also a much simpler pattern than the Advanced, Expert or Masters AMA pattern which is specifically to attract beginners!
While OTS may be more of a fun event and does have a simpler flying pattern, surely it wasn't conceived to hook beginners?
The event may be attractive to flyers wanting to make a start in stunt and try this simpler flying pattern stunt comp and that's fine and good. But it's an OTS comp, so why the problem using a period engine? They work, they can be very very cheap and with all the auction sites, engine sellers they really aren't that difficult to come by.
I can't help thinking of that Harley with the Honda Shadow motor, is it a Harley a Honda, or just a poke in a pig! I wouldn't want one and I certainly wouldn't try and enter one at a Harley nats! that's for sure.
I wouldn't want to stop anyone from having fun and if using an older engine is not seen as fun, why not go with classic?

From the PAMPA OTS Philosophy, "Old Time Stunt may attract new fliers to CL aerobatics events and competition."

John, I understand your point and don't really disagree with you. Your event seems to be just about recreating the past. Our event is based on the same premise, but is designed to be more inclusive.

I've spent a lot of time in natural history museums. Some have only research collections, where I spent many happy hours surrounded by jars and tanks of dead fish. But most US museums have not only research collections but large public education functions, displays with videos and flashing lights and shops where one can buy a plastic dinosaur or a stuffed toy wombat. I think our OTS is more like the latter. And, there is a certain amount of tension amomg museum people as to the proper nature of a museum.

I don't think OTS would be a sustanable event in the USA if we were to exclude non-period engines. As it is, the VSC in recent years has had around 70 entrants in OTS, but only a dozen or so in the spark ignition only event. (There is a 10 point bonus for a sparker in regular OTS.)

Hi Jim
I agree with you, 70 entries is no mean feat and evidence of a very successful formulae. Hard to argue that it could be improved and your point is well made.

I guess I was coming from a slightly different direction in my thinking. Some of the previous comments had suggested that period motors were too expensive or too difficult to get them to start or run reliably. I didn't think that necessarily had to be the case and got sidetracked from there!

I should also add that all our comps are flown over grass, seeing the pics of the "crash photo of the day" might even give me some doubts about using a period engine!