The history of Navy Carrier
by Dick Perry [email protected]
The CL Navy Carrier event has been flown at the National Aeromodeling Championships for 63 years. The first time it appeared was at the 1950 Nats at the Dallas Naval Air Station. For many years the U.S. Navy sponsored the Nats as part of its recruiting efforts, and the practice continued for approximately 25 years, producing fond memories of Navy hospitality for many of our “seasoned” modelers.
For the first six years of CL Navy Carrier flying, the contest was a Navy event. The Navy supplied the carrier deck, dubbed USS Smallfry, and specified the rules. Many of the rules we currently use are derived directly from those Navy rules.
The sizes of the carrier deck and models have remained fixed throughout our history until Profile models were allowed to expand to a 50‑inch span to include some of the existing Profile kits.
The original 44‑inch span size limit was intended to produce a carrier deck and model of approximately the same proportions as the operational straight‑deck aircraft carriers of the day. Original specifications also called for a maximum 58‑inch length and 17‑inch height. Those specifications were set so that the models would fit on a 1/12‑scale standard aircraft carrier elevator and fit into a 1/12‑scale hangar deck.
The Scale Model Bonus has always been 100 points. Requirements for Scale models have been refined throughout the years from rather general requirements originally to the specific tolerances and requirements of today. Since it was a U.S. Navy event, only U.S. Navy aircraft models could earn the Scale Model Bonus in the original rules. By 1955, the rules even specified which aircraft could be modeled.
There were 33 aircraft listed, of which eight were biplanes and five were jets, limiting the number of practical aircraft for modeling to roughly 20. When the AMA took over the CL Navy Carrier rules, the U.S. Navy restriction was initially retained. The number of eligible aircraft was expanded considerably in 1969 with the inclusion of naval carrier aircraft from all countries.
The winner of the first CL Navy Carrier event was Cal Smith. His Douglas AD-2 Skyraider was built to the 44‑inch wingspan limit of the rules. Its wing area was roughly 305 square inches.
Cal’s model was closer in size to the models currently being flown rather than to the smaller models that evolved in the early years of the event. Cal used an O&R .60 ignition engine. His only speed control was a second set of ignition points, which allowed for a single, preset low‑speed power setting.
Originally, there was one class of large CL Navy Carrier models and a small 1/2A class flown on 35‑foot lines. By 1955, the 1/2A event had been dropped. There was originally no engine size limit specified in the AMA rules, although the current .65 cu. in. limit was soon adopted.
In 1967, Class I models with a displacement limit of .40 cu. in. came into being, and in 1969 the Profile Navy Carrier event first appeared in the AMA rulebook.
Although it was an official AMA event, Profile Carrier was considered a category for beginners, and there was a restriction at the Nats against entering Profile Carrier if one was flying either of the Scale Carrier classes.
The Profile rules went through a series of engine restrictions that were focused on limiting competition. Those ineffective restrictions generated far more controversy and argument than new modelers.
The original scoring system was retained until 1976, when the scoring was changed to deemphasize high speed. For good or ill, that was also the first year that a Profile model was hung on its propeller for slow speed at the Nats. The original scoring system has been retained in the unofficial Nostalgia Navy Carrier events of the Navy Carrier Society (NCS).
Rules Proposals
I am writing this column in July and the next major changes to the Carrier rules are currently being discussed. In addition to the possibility of adding Electric Carrier (E‑Carrier) events to the AMA rulebook, one of the biggest potential changes may be the inclusion of RC technology for controlling auxiliary functions on Navy Carrier models.
To find out the results of the voting on various rules proposals, check the Competitions section of the AMA website. By the time this column is published, the results will be available.
The 2.4 GHz spread‑spectrum RC technology is being tested in some areas to gather data for the decision on adding such technology to Navy Carrier flying. There is a photo this month of Tony Naccarato’s Profile Carrier MO‑1, which uses radio control to operate the throttle. The first time I saw Tony fly a Carrier model with a radio‑controlled throttle was approximately four years ago in Phoenix.
Fairey Firefly
A new model making the Carrier competition scene this year is pictured in this column. Wayne Buran has produced a Fairey Firefly in the T‑2 trainer variant. The Firefly served the British Royal Navy during World War II and beyond as a fighter and reconnaissance aircraft. I’m fond of the Firefly and built one for Class I in the early 1970s.
Wayne’s Firefly has a 41‑inch wingspan and a 33‑inch fuselage. Power is from an Irvine .36 fitted with an O.S. 4BK carburetor and turning an APC 9 x 6 propeller. The model is equipped with a Brodak three‑line control system.
U/Tronics Systems
Electronic throttle controls were part of my last column, but I failed to give details of the system. Clancy Arnold makes the U/Tronics systems, which use a 10k potentiometer as an input device and produce an output signal compatible with standard RC servos or ESCs.
There are two common methods for using the U/Tronics system for Carrier, and Clancy produces a single‑channel U/Tronics unit well suited for Carrier. The U/Tronics controller can be mounted at the handle with the servo signal passing through the lines, or the unit can be in the model with the potentiometer in the handle. Both methods use two insulated lines for elevator control.
Pete Mazur’s U/Tronics handle is depicted. He houses the U/Tronics unit in the handle along with batteries and connects the potentiometer to the throttle control of a handle that mimics the configuration and feel of a standard mechanical three‑line handle.
In Pete’s application, the signal drives an ESC directly in a Class I F&F Bearcat for Class I E‑Carrier flying. The same system could drive a servo to control an internal combustion engine.
Another common practice in E‑Carrier flying is to use a standard mechanical three‑line system with the throttle arm of the bellcrank connected to the potentiometer as described above. In such a system, all of the electronics are in the model.
Contact information for Clancy Arnold is listed below.
SOURCES
- U/Tronics: (317) 387‑1940, [email protected]
- Navy Carrier Society (NCS): http://navycarriersociety.org
Transcribed from original scans by AI. Minor OCR errors may remain.
