Originally Posted by FanTasticModels

4) Wheel pants will be required if found on original and shall be no thinner than 1 inch at axle area.

Jerry and everyone,

I have comment regarding the rule additions and clarifications in post #156.
My understanding is that one of the key target participants for this class is the sport flyer who may belong to an RC club that has only a small grass field. As such, the race course has been spec'd for two-pole racing or the shorter three-pole course. This is great.

I am curious about the rule that requires wheel pants to be fitted to the model if the original had them. My feeling is that this rule will cause pain and frustration to the guy from the small grass field that has less than nicely manicured grass. My club in Calgary is primarily a grass field and we find that most models of this size cannot "keep their pants on" for more than a few flights due to the stress and wear and tear of landings. Takeoffs are also compromised as the pants drag in the grass causing nose overs or ground loops.

It seems like the rule has been written from the perspective of a nice paved hard surface runway. Just wondering if this rule could be less stringent to allow for these type of local conditions?

Randy

Randy,
the rule was created invisioning a national event .It was assumed(yeah, I know) that most clubs would alter this event to meet their own situation .Even if we have a certain certified motor , controller , etc I would think club might elect to have cheaper non standard brands to keep their costs down at the local level.I think racing without wheel pants falls under this same category.
Don't most of you agree? jerry

but wheel pants are always such a PAIN...

I was at EFest

see there...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/attac...mentid=3028061

and these too...

http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showt...6#post14215836

Originally Posted by FanTasticModels

Randy,
the rule was created invisioning a national event .It was assumed(yeah, I know) that most clubs would alter this event to meet their own situation .Even if we have a certain certified motor , controller , etc I would think club might elect to have cheaper non standard brands to keep their costs down at the local level.I think racing without wheel pants falls under this same category.
Don't most of you agree? jerry

Thanks Jerry. I agree. I was telling one of our club members just last night that we would likely adopt a local "waiver" of the wheel pant rule in our club for our purposes.

Originally Posted by Alien_Tech

Looks great Pete! Any shots of the interior?

Sorry - that's why its called a "teaser"

On the subject of wheel pants i have to say that they are part of the character of a Formulae 1 racer . To me a little Toni just dosnt look right without them and its my observation that at National events spectators also see them as part of the racing scene . I understand they need proper setting up and if not fitted correctly can cause problems but that does not mean we should dilute the formulae because some find this difficult . As for there reliability i have just returned from the flying field with my SEBART SUKHOI 30 model , my field is grass and has not been cut for several months , populated with rabbits who have dug holes and the grass is about 3 inches long - take off and landing no problem ,last week i flew the SEBART Katana and no problem ( i think im right in suggesting all SEBART models have spats .
That said we do not want to loose support just over the issue of spats so why not let clubs have licences to remove if there flying site does not allow but maintain there requirement at the larger or national meets when they arrive . Please please do not water down formulae 1 appearance specs otherwise we will eventually end up with models that bear no resemblance to this classic shapes we all love , we have all seen this happen time and time before , and i guess thats why so many people are contributing to this thread because the sample models in the pictures look just superb - just my view -

Been through this thread several times now to try an understand the rules for motors and cells . To my mind these are the items that will have a direct bearing on the succes or otherwise of this class . From a cells viewpoint am i right in assuming that the proposal is for a 4S pack - if so this feels right as these packs are realistic in price and do not need mega expensive chargers to keep cells in good condition . I see that cells capable of discharge rates up to 45C are arriving so no shortage there on available power . Can you also advise the current thinking on motor specs - are we going for a specific manufacturers type ie one motor class .If this is so then please consider availability outside the USA . If you are going to provide specs for the motor then would it be possible for someone to run a set of tests against available makes that meet the specs with a control propeller and consistent battery source so that performance of each can be advertised . From personal past experience once a formulae becomes popular then some manufacturers will purposely develop motors that are faster than the rest -net result is everyones equipment becomes redundant overnight and one has to start spending more money to stay competitive - again just my view

from what i gather is a turnegy 35-42-1250kv they are $17 at hobby king,

Originally Posted by vic welland

Arch,
I would really love to build that Rivets. I've been pretty successful running a 1/2a version and have been waiting over a year for wing cores for a Dan Kane 40 size.

Vic, you are not waiting for wing cores from me. I don't sell that airplane any more. If you ask Archie real nice, you might be able to get a set of his Proud Bird wing cores. If I remember correct, they were the same airfoil or close enough that you could pot it to fit. It has been about 10 yrs since I did anything with my QM Rivets.

Dan

Danny,
I talked to Vic yesterday, I'll be sending him what he needs later this week. I'm working on my EF-1 right now.

Arch

Originally Posted by Stevem9

from what i gather is a turnegy 35-42-1250kv they are $17 at hobby king,

"""I WAS TOLD""" at E-Fest

(by someone who should KNOW)

that there is a difference.......

that you get what you pay for!!!

that for the first flights the "Cheap" power systems are just as fast

but after some limited hard use this changes....

"""that you get what you pay for!!!"""


I have not tested this difference...

would someone report as to this longevity difference???

thanks

Dan, I got the fuse from the guy who bought your (or your dad's) molds. Arch is going to hook me up. Thanks

I can't wait to get one of these little guys!

Originally Posted by Dr. Sandy Frank

"""I WAS TOLD""" at E-Fest

(by someone who should KNOW)

that there is a difference.......

that you get what you pay for!!!

that for the first flights the "Cheap" power systems are just as fast

but after some limited hard use this changes....

"""that you get what you pay for!!!"""


I have not tested this difference...

would someone report as to this longevity difference???

thanks

i believe thats what they are doing now...testing

The idea is to find an inexpesive power system to get the class started. While I have no doubt there are faster set-up's that are legal within the rules, lets concentrate on getting this thing off the ground and let the rules be a work in progress. There will be issues that need to be ironed out, but we can tackle them in due time. For now a $17 motor and $27 battery along with inexpensive ARF's are the key to generating interest.

I too think the powerplant rules are a bit too broad, but lets just see where this goes. I'm sure local clubs will "waiver" certain aspects, like the wheel pants issue, but thats the whole idea. You can compete on a local level with mildly tweaked rules and know what the national standard is and go race witht he big boys.

Originally Posted by Dr. Sandy Frank

"""I WAS TOLD""" at E-Fest

(by someone who should KNOW)

that there is a difference.......

that you get what you pay for!!!

that for the first flights the "Cheap" power systems are just as fast

but after some limited hard use this changes....

"""that you get what you pay for!!!"""


I have not tested this difference...

would someone report as to this longevity difference???

thanks

I can tell you this much about the longevity of the Turnigy SK motors, "They are stout and they take abuse." They are some out there who have been having issues and I am working hard to see what the issue is, but I have the following Turnigy SK motors that I have tested:

35-42-1000Kv (flown on Predator 500 on 4S for 30-40 flights and then in LR-1A for over 50 flights. Flown with 8 x 6 to 9 x 7.5 APC "E" props.)

35-48-1100Kv (Flown in Predator and Raptor Q-500 on 4S using from 8 x 6 to 9 x 9 APC "E" props with no issues. Have over 75 flights on it.)

35-42-1250Kv (Flown in LR1-A 6 flights with 8 x 6 APC "E" prop. So far so good, but my batteries are getting soft. I will order new packs before I test further.)

Others have tested the Eflight Power 25 with 1000 and 1250 Kv's. This motor is bigger than the 35-42-1250 and thus has more torque which means it will need a bigger prop or higher Kv.

HC has some new in-runner motors called V-Specs that look very interesting. My uncle bought one for use in CL Stunt. It has very strong magnets and is a 6 pole motor. http://www.hobbycity.com/hobbyking/s...idProduct=9448 Click on the link to look it over.

For watts /dollar, you won't beat the Turnigy SK motors. They need to be run with adequate cooling, or you will burn them up. The 35-42-1250Kv motor is a very hot 4S motor capable of a lot of power. The 35-42-1000Kv with a 9 x 7.5 is the same speed as the 35-42-1250Kv with an 8 x 6. I can fly the 1000Kv until the batteries die, but the 1250Kv I would only fly in 2 minute sorties to reduce heat build up.

All my flights used a 4S 20C 2350 Rhino Li-Poly pack. My (4) packs have gotten a workout, but are still maintaining better than expected. I have used these packs to fly EP CL Stunt, so they have performed way past my expectations for under $30 a battery. They will output 650 watts max. A very cheap alternative to a watt limiter.

Archie Adamisin
Muncie, Indiana