Control Line: Navy Carrier
BY NOW YOU MAY have read that the two proposed rules changes for Control Line Navy Carrier events passed the initial Control Line Contest Board ballot. As you read this, the cross proposal deadline of July 15 should be imminent. I do not expect any cross proposals for the change that would allow an additional minute of starting time for each additional engine. The proposal would shorten the current allowance of two minutes per engine, passed earlier this year as an urgent proposal. However, the proposal to allow two-line control systems in Profile Carrier probably will see a cross proposal. As originally proposed, the change would mandate Class II line diameters for one- and two-line systems in Profile Carrier. It seems inappropriate to handicap Profile models with such large lines. Because an electronic control system for throttle would have a weight penalty compared to a traditional three-line control system, the smaller line sizes of Class I seem more appropriate.
Control Line: Navy Carrier
AS THIS ISSUE HITS the street, the 1997 flying season will be nearing its end, except for those of you who are lucky enough to live in more southern parts of the country. With the winter building season fast approaching, it's time to start planning for that new Carrier model that will impress your flying buddies in the spring. Three possibilities for building Carrier models (just as for any other type of model aircraft) are kits, plans, and original designs. Relatively few kit models are available that are specifically designed for Control Line (CL) Navy Carrier competition, but if you start looking at Radio Control (RC) kits, particularly 1/12-scale RC Combat models, there are more options. (I have compiled a list of manufacturers as I've mentioned items in my column.)
Control Line: Navy Carrier
What a great Carrier Nats! There were new models and new modelers; young modelers and old modelers (in experience, if not in age) who hadn't been seen at a Nats in quite a few years; there was a new event for old models, but not necessarily for old modelers; and most importantly, there was good competition, good sportsmanship, outstanding camaraderie, and a chance to catch up on what friends had been doing since the last Nats. Adding variety to the flightline this year were some new models, including a few new MO-1s, which added to the numbers of that popular design. In spite of the bonus that went into effect last year for multiengine models, all of this year's entries were single-engine types.
Control Line: Navy Carrier
Nats Equipment: It's been a couple of years since I've done a comprehensive review of the equipment used at the Nats. I like to do those reviews periodically because I believe that they are useful for anyone planning new models or new engines. With the building season upon us, now is as good a time as any. There are many potentially successful choices for Navy Carrier equipment. The Carrier pilot's skill has a large influence on the score; good equipment isn't as critical as it is in other competition categories, such as Speed and Racing, but it's still required for maximum performance. It's possible for good piloting skills to overcome equipment disadvantages, but the equipment determines the ultimate limit in performance. With the level of competition at the Nats, models there indicate which equipment is performing well.
Control Line: Navy Carrier
Wing Loading Revisited: The reason our current airplanes are significantly larger than the ones we flew 25 years ago is that slow speed is important to obtaining a good score. Our airplanes are larger because a lighter wing loading produces a better low speed. I pointed out the performance differences which were evident at the Nats in my last column. Because slow speed has a predominant role in determining overall flight score, the majority of our models are now built to a 44-inch wingspan limit. Because wing loading is determined by dividing weight by wing area, there are basically two ways to decrease wing loading: You can build a model lighter, and you can build a model larger. Building lighter has its limitations, and experience has shown that the best improvement in performance comes from building larger models.
