NAR Classic Model competition

[iter]

As I'm reading the current issue of Sport Rocketry and its coverage of NARAM 54, I wonder about the Classic Model event. Pink book lists no classes for this category. I'm unclear on motor class limitations, if any, for this event.

Ari.

 

[JAL3]

I just recently competed in one. My understanding is that there is no motor limitation. You are supposed to copy the original and make a safe flight.

Effectively, that means you will not likely be flying HPR.

 

[mikec]

Effectively, that means you will not likely be flying HPR.

Upscales are perfectly OK. The upscaled Orbital Transport in the referenced article was HPR.

 

[JAL3]

The competition I was in, the classic upscale was a different event from the classic craftsman.

 

[mikec]

The pink book entry for Classic Model is at https://www.nar.org/pinkbook/P57_CM.html (under provisional events). It says "The entry can be an upscaled or downsized version of the original model." Obviously a CD can add restrictions if they wish at a specific meet.

 

[JAL3]

The pink book entry for Classic Model is at https://www.nar.org/pinkbook/P57_CM.html (under provisional events). It says "The entry can be an upscaled or downsized version of the original model." Obviously a CD can add restrictions if they wish at a specific meet.

That makes sense.

I guess the answer to the original question is that the competition is not divided into power classes. MMX competes directly with a level 3 project. The grading is on the craftsmanship with a qualifying flight, not on any characteristic of the flight (except that it is safe).

I'm not a competition guy in the normal sense. I have greatly enjoyed building for and participating in a few contests but have spent very little time on the minutia of the pink book. I had never even heard of the Classic Competition when I learned that a Texas club was having one. I just thought it sounded like fun. It was (3rd place!)

 

[zog139]

To clarify you may fly any motor that is NAR Contest certified which can be found on the NAR website at https://www.nar.org/SandT/NARenglist.shtml and take note of the column on the right side of the page that says "Contest Certified ?" NAR contests under the sporting code never exceed 160 newton seconds in power.

Have Fun

 

[gpoehlein]

That makes sense.

I guess the answer to the original question is that the competition is not divided into power classes. MMX competes directly with a level 3 project. The grading is on the craftsmanship with a qualifying flight, not on any characteristic of the flight (except that it is safe).

Not quite. You must have a safe qualified flight with no damage to the model to gain flight points. On the other hand, you can declare mission points just as in Sport Scale. So, for example, a model of the Estes Scrambler that flies on a three motor cluster and lofts an egg would gain more mission points than an Alpha that was equally well built and finished. Mission points can be declared for things like clusters, staged flights, payloads, gliders and so forth.

 

[mikec]

The upscaled Orbital Transport in the referenced article was HPR.

I'll correct myself on this; I think this was Chan Stevens' model and while I'm not certain what motor it was using, it could well have been a G. I agree that the Pink Book doesn't seem to allow for any contest flying on HPR motors, though NAR has had a preliminary HPR Sporting Code for several years and there have been some HPR competitions at NARAM.

 

[georgegassaway]

I'll correct myself on this; I think this was Chan Stevens' model and while I'm not certain what motor it was using, it could well have been a G. I agree that the Pink Book doesn't seem to allow for any contest flying on HPR motors, though NAR has had a preliminary HPR Sporting Code for several years and there have been some HPR competitions at NARAM.

The model used a G40. It was a 264% upscale, built sensibly lightly.

There have been some unofficial HPR events held at NARAMs, as fun events.

I do not think the Pink Book will ever go beyond G power class for Championship points. Not unless a totally separate HPR only championship system was added.

Actually, the skills one uses in competition are all laid out in the lower power classes anyway. For the most part, above B or C engine power, the less it involves competition skill, and the more it involves "survival" and a willingness to outspend (or at least spend as much) as your other competitors. And having flown too many contests with F or G power when most of the competitors had wished the events were lower power, I know where I'm coming from when I say that. But that's not sour grapes either, because usually our teams have done better than others in F and G events (and have some records in the F and G classes, as well as lower power records). But sometimes, we simply out-survived the other guys. Almost like winning a car race by having most of the top contenders wrecked. That is not the sort of rat race I'd like to see jump beyond F and G power to things like K powered Helicopter, or how many dozen eggs someone can fly (Big blanking Deal). Or, "snowmobile duration".

- George Gassaway

 

[iter]

"snowmobile duration"

:eyeroll:

 

[MClark]

I see issues with the traditional altitude and parachute duration being HPR events.

The biggest being they go too high for most fields. The TRA record for H motors is just shy of 15,000’, imagine putting out a fair sized chute at that altitude for a PD event! Even Black Rock it would be off the playa and out of the waiver area.
The HPR motors are not real contest orientated, most are in the middle of the impulse range and burn times not optimized for altitude competitions.

Events like the Classic Model would be good for an HPR event, the upscale of Mod rocs is well received and rockets can be designed to suit the waiver and field size. This would be a good place to start NAR HPR in competition.

The Bowling Ball Loft (start a new thread to bi##h about it) is likely the most developed and longest running HPR event. Here we tried to get the altitudes down to be able to launch at LDRS locations with low waivers.
The bowling ball loft was based off the idea of the egg loft, a standard size and weight payload that was easily and cheaply obtainable. As the event went on we used smaller motors to get the altitude down, we went to PD rather than altitude due to the erroneous readings from altimeters. Most of the major manufactures made I and then H motors at max impulse for class and high thrust specifically for the event.

I believe if an event for NAR HPR competition were to be started the motor manufactures would support it and design and certify optimized motors.

For a new event I would suggest a payload similar to the Standard NAR payload but sized and weighted to suit the motors. We received a lot of flak just because the payload was a B-Ball, if it had been a nose cone filled with an equal amount of ballast life would have been quieter. A quick scaling of a C motor payload rocket to an I motor would give a 3” diameter, 11” long and weigh 4 lbs (64x the weight and volume). A quick sim of a simple rocket goes 5000’. That is a reasonable rocket and altitude. If the payload is scaled to the motor the altitude stays ballpark the same. The payload is a cardboard tube filled with sand, not controversial.

Mark

 

[iter]

Events like the Classic Model would be good for an HPR event, the upscale of Mod rocs is well received and rockets can be designed to suit the waiver and field size. This would be a good place to start NAR HPR in competition.

Right. My original interest in starting this thread is upscaling classic glider kits to HPR.

Ari.

 

[georgegassaway]

The Bowling Ball Loft (start a new thread to bi##h about it) is likely the most developed and longest running HPR event. Here we tried to get the altitudes down to be able to launch at LDRS locations with low waivers.
The bowling ball loft was based off the idea of the egg loft, a standard size and weight payload that was easily and cheaply obtainable. As the event went on we used smaller motors to get the altitude down, we went to PD rather than altitude due to the erroneous readings from altimeters. Most of the major manufactures made I and then H motors at max impulse for class and high thrust specifically for the event.

I believe if an event for NAR HPR competition were to be started the motor manufactures would support it and design and certify optimized motors.

For a new event I would suggest a payload similar to the Standard NAR payload but sized and weighted to suit the motors. We received a lot of flak just because the payload was a B-Ball, if it had been a nose cone filled with an equal amount of ballast life would have been quieter. A quick scaling of a C motor payload rocket to an I motor would give a 3” diameter, 11” long and weigh 4 lbs (64x the weight and volume). A quick sim of a simple rocket goes 5000’. That is a reasonable rocket and altitude. If the payload is scaled to the motor the altitude stays ballpark the same. The payload is a cardboard tube filled with sand, not controversial.

Mark

When were the last 5 times it was held, and how many flew it those last 5 times? I didn't follow it but my impression was it was a limited event flown by a few people which died out due to to lack of interest.

The fact of the bowling ball was only part of the problem. To me and others, a big dumb inert payload for the sake of flying a big dumb inert payload was more of the problem. So, whether it was a bowling ball, 4 pounds of sand in a payload section, or a Mark and Brian turkey (how many will get that reference?), it's still basically the same basic big dumb payload for the sake of a big dumb payload problem.

As for HPR scale-up of old glider kits, that's a real niche. There's not many who can successfully fly an HPR glider of any kind, not even that many that can fly one on F or G power. And that is when they have the freedom to design exactly what they want to, rather than being forced to do an accurate scale-up of a Classic kit which can cause a lot of complications.

Take for example one that is actually pretty decent to scale up, the Estes Astron Space Plane.

https://georgesrockets.com/GRP/GLIDERS/SpacePlane/Spaceplane.html

I made a 2x (B or C power) and a 4X (F13 or G12 power) model, for R/C. The only viable way to make the R/C work was to have control horns and pushrods exposed. And it didn't matter since I did it for FUN, not for a contest. But it would be no good for a contest, because it would lose points for the exposed pushrods and horns, lose points for not having a scaled-up elevon rubber band and elevon angle stop system like the original (plus the angle stops would interfere with R/C). And lose points for not having the roll tabs at the ends of the tip plates that the original used to make it roll on boost, which was not needed for an R/C model and would interfere with the R/C boost and R/C glide if they were added for judging purposes.

Now, having said that, I do have a dream of one day making an 8X to 12X Astron Space Plane. But only for fun, for my own reasons, when I'm ready to, and not something made for a specific date and built to be judge-worthy accurate and pretty as would be needed for a contest model. The 4X Spaceplane handles absolutely beautifully as an R/C glider, and with a G12 motor at about 20-24 ounces liftoff mass, it was easy to boost too.

- George Gassaway

 

[mikec]

To me and others, a big dumb inert payload for the sake of flying a big dumb inert payload was more of the problem.

How is that any different than Pink Book egg loft or payload, just scaled up? There was a lot of real building skill and design cleverness going into bowling ball lofting; it's too bad that it's faded out.

 

[iter]

As for HPR scale-up of old glider kits, that's a real niche. There's not many who can successfully fly an HPR glider of any kind, not even that many that can fly one on F or G power.

Thank you for making me feel special George!

Ari.