CONTROL LINE COMBAT
Rich von Lopez, 8334 Colegio Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90045
FROM TIME TO TIME a manufacturer develops a product for a very specialized group of users/consumers. Wiley Wiley (Wiley's Custom Engines, 15605 Wright Brothers Lane, Addison, TX 75244; Tel.: [214] 245-6548, fax: [214] 702-9210) has entered the model engine manufacturing business with some very high-performance .36 engines.
A .36 is primarily for Slow and AMA Fast Combat — a rather small market compared to RC. Combat fliers ask a lot of an engine: one-flip starts; hot restarts; high horsepower; strength; light weight; longevity; and the ability to digest dirt without harming its internal organs. It also has to be cheap or at least reasonable.
This is like asking for a Ferrari F40 that will run as long as a Mercedes-Benz diesel, have the strength of a Dodge Ram pickup, and sell for the price of a Geo Metro. Combat pilots do have high expectations. I am sure Wiley Wiley knows this is a tall order.
The Wiley .36 comes with a sticker price of $185, which places it in the reasonable category. Considering the precision machining and good-quality metals, the price is not out of line. The engine is a proven winner, having earned a share of the 1994 AMA Nationals Slow Combat championship in the hands of Mike Willcox (Mike also used a Nelson part of the time during his run to the winner's circle). Wiley Wiley was at the Nats for the entire week, offering advice to users and nonusers of his engines.
In the December issue of Model Aviation I mentioned I would do a full report on the Wiley .36 that I brought back from the Nats. I have done some testing, but not as much as I would have liked. Nonetheless, here is what I have come up with for the Wiley .36.
Wiley .36: testing and performance
I ran it on 25% nitro fuel that uses 20% UCON 625 oil as the lubricant and 55% methanol. No other additives are in this fuel. The engine felt a bit tight, so I wanted to take it easy for the first few runs.
I used a Rev-Up competition prop (8-3/4 x 6-1/2 cut down to 7-1/2) at first just to run some fuel through it. It started on one flip right out of the box and held a needle setting without a problem. All of the starts have been very easy. It has blown one glow plug so far, but the element was merely broken down inside the glow-plug body. The cylinder head clearance is at .013 inch.
I then ran a new Master Airscrew Scimitar 8 x 6 prop; it turned 20,500 rpm. At the Nats, Wiley was using 40–50% nitro. I have not tried that yet, so I have not realized the engine's full potential. I do intend to continue testing this well-made engine.
The Wiley .36 weighs 264 grams (9.33 ounces) with its remote needle valve. For comparison:
- AAC Nelson: 243 grams (8.59 ounces)
- New Fox Mark 7: 259 grams (9.15 ounces)
- ABC Stels: 215 grams (7.60 ounces)
- Lopez Mark 6 ABC Fox (weight-reduction plan): 241 grams (8.52 ounces)
Engines can be made to fly well on a model. The trick is to get the right number of square inches to go along with the weight of the engine. When you start tinkering with lots of different engine/model combinations, you lose the standardization advantage that is essential to good contest performance.
Model fleets and testing philosophy
Of course, all of you have multiple fleets of models for each engine, right? I usually like to keep a fleet of models strictly for contest use that have been flown just enough to be trimmed out. They are all the same design, and no model is any better than another.
I have another group of models that may be various designs or prototypes for future fleets. Some of the first-line models that have sustained damage and been repaired go to the pile of models used for 80-mph Combat, where a crisp and clean model is not essential.
My engine testing takes place with models that are prototypes (or those that I have only one of) because of the heavy use they will encounter being flown flight after flight.
COMPETITION REGULATIONS (1996–1997)
AMA is in the middle of the 1996–1997 Competition Regulations cycle. There are only two proposals submitted for consideration; both come from Phil Cartier, the current president of the Miniature Aircraft Combat Association and longtime Combat columnist for Flying Models.
CL-96-14 (Slow Combat, Event 329)
Proposed change: "A kill does not end the match. Either both competitors can score a kill in a match. A flier will receive 100 points for a kill only if it is the first cut scored by the flier. Once the judges have scored a cut, cutting the string will count zero."
The guys who fly on the East Coast have been using this scoring system for a long time, and it seems to work for them. This change would make for a third type of flying that pilots must develop. In Fast Combat you have the kill rule that is simple and final in concept — go after the string if you want it. In FAI F2D Combat, the idea is to take as many little cuts as you can, aiming for the back end of the streamer. The current Slow Combat rules are in line with that thinking.
I don't like this change for the simple reason that Slow Combat can be a training ground for future World Championship contenders, so the rules should be similar in nature. I am sure Phil would like your opinions as well. There is also a seven-foot distance from the back end of the model to the knot, which provides a reasonable zone to take the last cut.
Phil Cartier's second proposal (several parts)
Part 1 — cooperation when lines are tangled: "If one plane crashes when the lines are tangled, the pilot remaining airborne must cooperate with the downed pilot and the circle marshal (if applicable) to untangle the lines. Ordinarily, the airborne pilot will fly loops or figure eights and bend down or get down on one knee so the downed pilot can untangle his handle from the lines."
This seems sensible and is common practice now anyway; let's go ahead and put this into the rule book.
Part 2 — airtime scoring when lines are tangled: "Airtime will not be scored while the lines are tangled if one plane is down. When one plane lands/crashes and the judges see that the lines are tangled, the airtime watch for the airborne plane will be stopped until the line tangle has been cleared and the plane resumes normal, upright, level flight."
I would like to see something stated about the downed pilot being required to help get the mess cleared as well. Let me set up this scene: it is near the end of the match, and the downed pilot is ahead at the time of the crash. He wants to delay the line tangle as long as he can, so he might pull on his lines a bit or go the wrong way to unwrap them. The downed pilot has a lot more control over the untangling process than does the flying pilot. He may have also been given the signal from his crew that his model is unflyable and he had better delay if he wants to win.
Line tangles are a crap shoot, and no decent pilot likes any part of them. The guy on the ground may have caused the tangle through a faulty model that came flying across the circle. To give this guy a break through penalizing his opponent is not a good idea. Let's send this part of the rule back to the drawing board.
Part 3 — failure to cooperate / following marshal directions: "Not cooperating with a downed pilot to untangle the lines when one plane is down and the lines are tangled, or not following directions of the circle marshal (if applicable) to help clear the line tangle when one plane is down and the lines are tangled."
I did not look this part up in the rule book, but I am sure it is in the section for forfeitures. I would not mind this part if you took out the words "with a downed pilot." Both pilots need to cooperate in any line tangle — not just the pilot flying. If the language was cleaned up, I might be tempted to go along with the second proposal. Right now I have to say "no."
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
