RADIO CONTROL: PYLON RACING
Bill Hager, 4 Holly Springs Dr., Conroe TX 77302
Well, it looks as though considerable time and effort is going to be spent changing QM-40 rules. Every time someone comes up with a new idea, someone else tries to make a rules change to stop it. Wow, what a mess!
People forget that no matter what the race is, there is always someone looking for a better, faster way to perform—anything to get an edge. Competitors will push the rules to the limit. QM-40 is a new event, and those who thought of it didn't think competitors would be going as fast as they are. These smaller airplanes are going faster than Formula I models, and the same people are still winning!
What about safety? Many people wouldn't fly Formula I because it was too fast. Now there is a smaller airplane with the same size engine and a tuned muffler (or pipe, whatever you want to call it) that is already going faster than anything else. Throw that in with people who want to change the rules every couple of days, and you have chaos!
For instance, QM-40 is supposed to be same-scale. When someone comes up with an airplane that goes a little faster, competitors start looking at how close to scale it is. Some of the people who are making the most noise are the ones who have made some of the fastest kits for this event! Maybe they should work to improve their products instead of scrutinizing others—improvement is what competition is all about.
Better cars are driven today because of auto racing. Ford does not get someone to make Chevy illegal for stock car racing if Chevy is winning; Ford works to make their cars better. Get with it, guys!
Letter from Rusty Van Baren regarding his Vendetta
"Enclosed is a letter sent to Wayne Yeager and other AMA officials. I believe that they are disrupting a successful event due to a few complaining people or manufacturers. They have blown a minor event problem out of proportion by establishing an entirely new set of criteria and virtually eliminating all current airplanes produced. I don't believe this was intended to be an exact-scale event.
"I also feel certain airplanes are being singled out due to their success, such as my Vendetta. Others are being overlooked, such as the Napier Heston, which doesn't meet a clear-cut nonsubjective rule. The real aircraft must have raced. The Napier crashed on its maiden voyage! By not enforcing this rule, people who have done good research in selecting a project are being penalized. People who have made errors in their selection are being rewarded. If this was an AMA decision that was in error, then correct it. It seems they want to fix other problems that they perceive.
"In an effort to silence one complaining manufacturer, Rick Moorland proposed this urgent rule proposal. This seems to be a very drastic measure for one squeaky wheel. Should we change a very successful and growing event?
"Their new proposals are no more definitive than before, by using terminology such as '... must resemble real aircraft.' Sounds like semiscale to me. When I asked Wayne Yeager what dimensions to make a particular shape, he could not define it. I have already made two fuselage molds due to two AMA officials as they suggested, and now they are in question. How can a person commit their resources to an airplane at the whims of people who cannot define the rules or what is acceptable themselves as they have written them?"
Copy of what Rusty sent for review
"Wayne, enclosed is a fuselage for your viewing and rules compliance. I have made notes on the fiberglass fuselage to comply with one interpretation of the rules. I will, if necessary, increase the width of the belly scoop. I would also like to note that I have already increased the dimensions of the belly scoop as per your and Mr. Moorland's instructions. Please refer to all of your sections that state 'resemble full-scale aircraft.' My understanding is that this is not an exact-scale event. This terminology is more definitive than semiscale.
"Enclosed are detailed engineering drawings of a Vendetta and some photos. Please note that all protruding curves are on my model. I might add that the Stiletto produced by other manufacturers does not have the scoop below spinners the scale outline shows on a P-51. This scoop is full width of fuselage at nose, as is the belly scoop on the P-51 at the rear of the wing. The top of a P-51 fuselage is basically flat, and does not develop a 10–15° slope from the spinner to the canopy, as one prominent Stiletto kit displays.
"The Nemesis is a square flat-sided fuselage with a small canopy which barely fits the pilot on the real aircraft. Also, there is a large air scoop or air horn on the bottom of the engine compartment. This is required for compliance of the rules if I choose to make one? These citations of scale are only for use if we are in fact a Scale event!
"One other comment I would like to make in closing the ruling regarding the Napier Heston: AMA made an error, from what I gather, and you have told me that about 15 years ago Q-15 which I understand is 425 event. Our event is 422. Since the new criteria have developed, really doesn't even resemble our former Q-40 rules, why would it be relevant to Q-15, which isn't even flown at national events? Do two errors in judgment by AMA make it correct?
"It also states that airplanes with little or no information researched by the designer of that aircraft. Was this decision based on any concrete info? If the info was not provided, the airplane is not justified to participate. You have mentioned to me that there are three or four manufacturers this would impact. This should not even be of concern. Other manufacturers have chosen airplanes that have been raced and have done complete research to make a valid selection for their project.
"The grandfathering of the Napier penalized the people who have made choices according to the rules. This is not fair! This is favoritism to manufacturers or designers, or AMA officials not willing to correct their 15-year-old mistake! If other manufacturers are required to make new molds by the new criteria, so should the Napier manufacturers. Personally, I have nothing against Napier; it just doesn't meet a clear-cut nonsubjective rule. It must have raced, according to the AMA rules!"
By the time you read these letters, most of the problems will have been worked out, but this is a good example of what competitors are going through. Just a few people are making decisions for everyone. I've been racing for about 26 years, and this is the first time that I've heard of anything such as this (someone having to submit drawings to one or two people for approval). It does not sound very democratic.
Get back on track, guys; you are going to ruin another racing event by fighting and complaining (if the shoe fits, wear it). Let me know what you think.
To stay on top of what's going on and to be a part of pylon racing, join the National Miniature Pylon Racing Association (NMPRA). For information, write to Paul Page:
- Paul Page, 49 Debra Lane, Bristol CT 06010-2725
- Tel: (860) 584-9437
See ya next month!
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
