Navy Carrier
Richard L. Perry
I DID NOT make it to the Canadian Nationals because of my job and my trip to the U.S. NATS, but Harry Higley did attend and sent along the following report of the Navy Carrier activities there:
"For reasons of geography, this year's Canadian Nats provided a serious, intense, yet enjoyable competition for those Navy Carrier fliers who could attend. The part of the U.S. with the most interest in Carrier is much closer to London, Ont., the site of the Canadian Nats, than it is to Lake Charles, where the U.S. Nats was held. Hence, for many of our fliers, Canada was within reach while the U.S. Nats was a bit too far, though we all would like to have been present at the Louisiana gathering."
While there was only one Canadian entry, New York, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois provided an ample number of contestants. With so little activity in Navy Carrier north of the border, there were some unusual methods of organization. Our Canadian neighbors made the facilities available and furnished awards, but the details of running the event were left to the contestants. Lou Baker and Cora Higley, with an able assist from the Windsor Model Airplane Club, provided the judging expertise. The Detroit Carrier Team brought their deck, and the labor needed to set up and pack things away was offered by the contestants.
The winners, mostly the Detroit Carrier Team, received beautiful walnut trophies that were worthy of their best efforts. A nice gesture of our Canadian hosts was a special trophy for the best non-winning score posted by a junior. All age groups were combined so the younger flyers appreciated this.
Next year the Canadian Nats move way out west and will be too distant for most of us. When it returns to the London area, I am sure our hosts can again be assured a strong Carrier entry.
Flying conditions were good though the heat and humidity were a bit on the high side. As might be expected with the humidity, the crash barrier was the recipient of a couple hundred cooked glow plugs. The wind was ever present but steady and not too strong; no one crashed as a result of it. Our event has its share of problems and it is nice when the weather makes its contribution to our affairs.
There are several measures for the success of a contest, and by any measure the trip was worth the effort. One method of evaluating is to count the number of entries. Since the clock was used every minute it is safe to say there were enough. Another standard is to compare the winners' scores with those of other contests or to compare them against national records. The readers may make their own comparisons. The scores were 569 in Class I, 588 in Class II and 383 in Profile. None of these flights was an easy winner because the second and third place flights were only a few points off the pace. Another measure of success is the attitude of the contestants, which was commendable! Nearly everyone commented on the relaxed atmosphere. (It was too hot to get excited.)
Have you ever seen a new Carrier record printed in Competition Newsletter and wondered who set it and what equipment was used? I am going to try to keep you all posted on what is being used to set the records. We broke both Class I and II Open records in Dayton, Ohio, last September. Dave Wallick set the Class II record at 642.43, and I moved the Class I record up to 625.14.
Dave used a 33-in. span Guardian, which is small by normal Class II standards at about 165 sq. in. wing area. Dave's engine was a Rossi 60 using a Rev Up 10-8W Super M prop and burning a mixture of 70% nitromethane, 10% [illegible], 20% [illegible]. Speed control was by means of a fuel meter and exhaust slide using crankcase pressure and a Fox idle-bar glow plug.
The 33-in. Guardian is available as Model Airplane News plan #173. I used my Short Seamew whose 140 sq. in. wing area is larger than most. The engine was a SuperTigre G40 ABC with a ST Mag throttle and a pressure fuel tank. Fuel and plug were the same as Dave used. I have been having good luck with Top Flite props lately, using an 8½-8½ made from a 10-8½ speed prop. I will discuss the fuel system and throttle used in the next column. The Seamew plans are available as Model Aviation plan #101.
What are your opinions on whether or not Profile Carrier models should look like real airplanes? Joe Cook of Levittown, Penn., wrote that he does not think that either outlines or paint schemes are necessary. Other Carrier modelers, myself included, would like to see some realism return to the Profile event. Many modelers with whom I have talked agree that a bonus point award is a good idea.
My personal thoughts are that any bonus should be allowed only as a way to compensate for the performance disadvantage of the larger fuselage—perhaps 15-25 points. Simple requirements of side-view outlines of fuselage and vertical tail surfaces and top-view outlines of wing and horizontal tail surfaces would be all that would be required, thus allowing maximum simplicity in the models (no requirement for dihedral, scale gear location, or scale hinge lines on moveable surfaces).
A Profile Carrier bonus points rule should return some of the realism and spectator appeal to the event and will help prepare the Profile modelers for the scale building and verification requirements of Class I and II. Let's hear your ideas, or, better yet, submit a rules change proposal so that, if there is sufficient support, such a rule may be enacted for 1978.
(My address is: 5016 Angelina Ave., Dayton, Ohio 45424.)
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
