OTS Designs

Hello to All,
Just a quick question on OTS Planes, and what modifications can you "Do", or "Not Do" and still be able to fly them in competion.
Is it Ok to widen the fuselage some for a better fuel tank fit? Use plywood doublers in the engine area where the plans call for balsa doublers. Use of a Modern Engine. Things like this. Thanks.
George.

Yes, yes, yes, and I don't know.

Have you read rules for OTS? Be a lot quicker than polling us on random points.

You need to consult the PAMPA rules for OTS. They were published in the Nov/Dec 2000 Stunt News. The 1951-52 AMA pattern flown in OTS was published in the Sep/Oct 2001 Stunt News. I think both are available from PAMPA products.

>Hello to All,
>Just a quick question on OTS Planes, and what modifications
>can you "Do", or "Not Do" and still be able to fly them in
>competion.
>Is it Ok to widen the fuselage some for a better fuel tank
>fit? Use plywood doublers in the engine area where the plans
>call for balsa doublers. Use of a Modern Engine. Things like
>this. Thanks.
>George.

According to the PAMPA rules, you are not allowed to change the outside dimensions. I would thus think widening the fuselage for a better fuel tank fit would not be allowed. However, any internal structural changes are fine. So the plywood doublers, change in the way things are mounted (internally) etc. are fine. In the US you can use any engine you wish. Other countries have different ruleson that or give bonus points for older engines. Adjustable leadout guides and tip weight boxes are also allowed, as would take apart construction.

Thanks for the replys, as this helps out. I'm still waiting for the rules from PAMPA. It's been a couple of weeks now. Just thought I'd get some advise ahead of time before I modify the All American Senior in the building stages.
George

YES YOU CAN WIDEN THE FUSE FOR A 2" TANK AS 3.1.9 of the pampa rules.

Leonard, I see you have not looked at the PAMPA rules lately. I wish people who do not have the rules in hand would not speculate as to their nature. It is not helpful!

PAMPA OTS rule 3.1.9. "Fuselage width may be modified to accomodate commerical two- inch (2") fuel tanks and allow them to be replaced or serviced."

Jimx(

Well, you are right, I haven't looked at them lately. And I did speculate since I do not understand why this rule was added which then allows the changing of the exterior when we aren't supposed to be making exterior changes. Aren't narrower tanks available (standard 1 3/4 inch, for instance) and/or the making of a home made tank if necessary? After all, we are supposed to be duplicating an old time design, are we not? You are not allowed to make thicker stabilizers so that you can use "standard" barrel type hinges (or has that rule been changed, too?) I know you can lengthen the gear to accomodate bigger propellers that can be turned by bigger, modern engines so I guess you can widen the fuselage to accomodate the larger tank needed for the bigger engine that is turning the bigger prop.

So, it is acceptable to widen a narrower fuselage to accomodate a 2 inch wide tank. I stand corrected. But why?

>Well, you are right, I haven't looked at them lately. And I
>did speculate since I do not understand why this rule was
>added which then allows the changing of the exterior when we
>aren't supposed to be making exterior changes. Aren't
>narrower tanks available (standard 1 3/4 inch, for instance)
>and/or the making of a home made tank if necessary? After
>all, we are supposed to be duplicating an old time design,
>are we not? You are not allowed to make thicker stabilizers
>so that you can use "standard" barrel type hinges (or has
>that rule been changed, too?) I know you can lengthen the
>gear to accomodate bigger propellers that can be turned by
>bigger, modern engines so I guess you can widen the fuselage
>to accomodate the larger tank needed for the bigger engine
>that is turning the bigger prop.
>
>So, it is acceptable to widen a narrower fuselage to
>accomodate a 2 inch wide tank. I stand corrected. But why?

Why?...I don't know...Why no a Chicken..? Also, don't forget to
commend the C.D.s that allow foam wings and thicker airfoils too.....
tony

The whys and whofos of PAMPA OTS were discussed in some detail a month or so ago. The PAMPA rules statement of event philosophy answers Leonard's question. As to changes in airfoils; this is specifically forbidden in PAMPA OTS rule 3.2. Given that the OTS rules are not widely known nor readily available, one will encounter things that don't quite fit from time to time, and perhaps should not too critical. Look at the discussions of present AMA rules which are available for free in hard copy and on the AMA website.

Well, you are right, I haven't looked at them lately. And I did speculate since I do not understand why this rule was added which then allows the changing of the exterior when we aren't supposed to be making exterior changes. Aren't narrower tanks available (standard 1 3/4 inch, for instance) and/or the making of a home made tank if necessary? After all, we are supposed to be duplicating an old time design, are we not? You are not allowed to make thicker stabilizers so that you can use "standard" barrel type hinges (or has that rule been changed, too?) I know you can lengthen the gear to accomodate bigger propellers that can be turned by bigger, modern engines so I guess you can widen the fuselage to accomodate the larger tank needed for the bigger engine that is turning the bigger prop.
So, it is acceptable to widen a narrower fuselage to accomodate a 2 inch wide tank. I stand corrected. But why?

Leonard Neumann

Puhlease, let's at least be consistent about these sorts of things.

Just as with B.O.M. rule, OTS rules are a settled issue for the time being. There is no point in giving bad/incorrect advice simply due to not having read current rules, nor is there any point in asking, "But why?"

We have a quite good set of OTS rules. Let's all understand them, both as to letter of the rules, the spirit and intent of the rules, build something suitable and have a good time with it.

If there are changes to make, let's see a proposal. When there is such on the table, let's discuss it.

For a RARE change, I agree with you Dan.

Bigiron

Marvin, you know I like you.

It was a simple misunderstanding of some sort that Rich "von" Lopez let you think he was Dirty Dan, that I let you think it was Rich you were talking to me when it was me all along.

Okay, letting the deception run for 20-plus years might in some quarters be regarded as a bit extreme. But my man, I really do like you; can't we agree to agree more often in the future?

Dan (Insert butt load of smiley-face icons)

That's gotta sting jeeeeusst a little bit.

>That's gotta sting jeeeeusst a little bit.
>
>
>
>From somewhere near Parkville, Mo.
>William Crane
>AMA 6733

Not meant to, merely a poke with a sharp stick. And I do like Marvin, especially the way he has with Fox 35s.

Slow fingers, my post was two too late. I'm not getting into any Marvin bashing, I gotta fly against the old far....mer this weekend.

>Puhlease, let's at least be consistent about these sorts of
>things.
>
>Just as with B.O.M. rule, OTS rules are a settled issue for
>the time being. There is no point in giving bad/incorrect
>advice simply due to not having read current rules, nor is
>there any point in asking, "But why?"
>
>We have a quite good set of OTS rules. Let's all understand
>them, both as to letter of the rules, the spirit and intent
>of the rules, build something suitable and have a good time
>with it.
>
>If there are changes to make, let's see a proposal. When
>there is such on the table, let's discuss it.
>
>Dan
>

Dan, as usual you try to start a fight when there is no fight to be had. I never suggested a rule change and I did admit to my error. I corrected my original statement, but then asked a simply "Why?" I would think a reasonable sort could answer the why question without going into a tantrum about rules change proposal. I am not making nor suggesting any changes in the rule, just asking why this was added since there is usually a way around putting a tank in there somewhere--especially since internal structural changes are (logically) allowed.

>Thanks for the replys, as this helps out. I'm still waiting
>for the rules from PAMPA. It's been a couple of weeks now.
>Just thought I'd get some advise ahead of time before I
>modify the All American Senior in the building stages.
>George

George;

Yes, you can modify to use 1" high by 2" wide by X" inches long, the "X" being the number of ounces you need to hold. But, this can present some challenges with fellow flyers that you may have to deal with.

A good example of this is the work that Walt Umland and I just did on the El Diablo. As shown in the original MAN plans, you have to go with a tank of about 3/4" high to have the ability to do any tank shimming up or down. So, we increased the height of the fuselage a little to allow for this, and then tried to blend the fuse to keep the original "look" of the El Diablo. One of the look aspects is the relationship between the height of the fuselage at the stab in relation to the position of the stab. To keep the look the same, we had to raise the stab a little. That takes it out of horizontal alignment with the wing. One modeler has cried "foul" and feels that the ship no longer meets PAMPA OTS specs. Will the stab position have any major effect on the ship's performance and give an unfair advantage not in keeping with the spirit of the event? I don't think so.

The goal of OTS is to provide a venue to preserve and enjoy pre-1953 designs in a friendly competitive atmosphere. Minor mods to the fuse so that one can use commercially available tanks is, in my opinion, keeping with the spirit of the event. There will always be hair splitters who will argue, but they would probably balk if you didn't use a four bolt Fox, so it is relative. From what I have seen and heard, most CDs are resonable adults who understand the concept of keeping within the spirit of the event versus pole vaulting over ant turds.

Your mileage may vary.

V/r

Dan, as usual you try to start a fight when there is no fight to be had. I never suggested a rule change and I did admit to my error. I corrected my original statement, but then asked a simply "Why?" I would think a reasonable sort could answer the why question without going into a tantrum about rules change proposal. I am not making nor suggesting any changes in the rule, just asking why this was added since there is usually a way around putting a tank in there somewhere--especially since internal structural changes are (logically) allowed.

Leonard Neumann

Sigh. This from a man who has accused *me* of twisting *his* words.

We all remember last act of good ol' catch-and-release routine, do we not?

SPLISH!!

Whoa, that sucker was so big it splashed water all over our Walla Walla sweet onion and vine-ripened tomato sandwiches. Shuckins, Pa!