Dear RC Unlimiteds members of Washington State,

[Mike Luszcz]

I was not sure how to reach out to RCU any better way than this. I was talking to David Newton and Robert Bracket last week, and David expressed RCU was looking to get back to building the hull bottoms closer to the full size hulls like in the past, and I wanted to make sure RCU knows they have my support with making sure kits for the club fit the possible rules.

Currently, the bottoms of my kits are changed from the Newton plans to help handle todays power systems, and break points are moved forward, not only for blow off safety, but for the FE guys to have the room they need to get center of gravity correct. These changes fit the current IMPBA and NAMBA rules. With that being said, I do not mind making copies of my current kit, and making the needed changes back toward the Newton plans.

I don't want anyone left out of being able to build the hull they want in the manor they need. While I want to continue progressively evolve whats needed to handle the speeds new motors/ engines are capable of, and will do that through the standard kits and the extreme kits I offer, I want everyone to know if they need it old school..I will try and make that happen! Thanks for RCU's support of my kits so far. I hope to continue working with you moving forward! Mike Luszcz

 

[Don Ferrette]

Ok please know up front this is nothing against my friends in RCU but this seems entirely counterproductive. While Roger did us all a great favor drawing up the scale plans most of those are over 25 years old and the motors didn't make 1/2 the horsepower that they do now. With the available muscle of today's powerplants building boats with all that positive attack angle underneath turns them into kites. Why would one want to move backwards? Why would you want to add a few pounds of lead just to keep them on the water? To me as long as the top and sides maintain the scale appearance and intergrity changing things like the tunnel AOA, ride pads, etc. to make for a more stable and raceable platform is the right approach. Granted I'm only speculating but it sure would seem there's more to this than initially meets the eye, would be great if RCU members would comment on this thread to help the rest of us understand the reasoning behind it.......................

 

[Hydro Junkie]

Don, this is my take on the subject and may not agree with what other members of R/C Unlimiteds think.

When building a scale boat, the model should reflect the basic design of the full sized boat. With all the redesigning Mike has done, I see his kits to be more suited to the sport 60 class than a true scale class. While modifying a hull during the build is "legal" and I do acknowledge that, too much modifying takes away from the scale aspect of the model. I personally don't see David's comment as a move backward but, rather, more of a step back to what the scale class was meant to be when it was started back in the 70s. The scale class was never meant to be all about "speed" as some see it. In that regard, if it takes a bit more work to build a more scale boat and make it runable, so be it

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don, this is my take on the subject and may not agree with what other members of R/C Unlimiteds think.

When building a scale boat, the model should reflect the basic design of the full sized boat. With all the redesigning Mike has done, I see them as more suited to the sport 60 class than a true scale class. While modifying a hull during the build is "legal" and I do acknowledge that, too much modifying takes away from the scale aspect of the model.

Sport 60??? That is ABSURD! The boats are still true to scale and in many aspects more so than some boats I've seen pictured on the RCU website over the years. All we are talking about is improvements to things like tunnel angles, ride pads etc. to make for a better performing, better handling hull. And since you went there why don't you elaborate on the boat in your sig line - "Scale 1999 Miss Madison, wood hull from heavily modified Roger Newton plans". Sure seems hypocritical to what you just posted............................

 

[Duck899]

We could see if the engine manufacturers want to build loop scavenged-ringed engines too.

 

[Don Ferrette]

We could see if the engine manufacturers want to build loop scavenged-ringed engines too.

LMAO!! Now THAT is funny right there. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Mike Luszcz]

Just so everyone knows, not all the kits have changes! Mark likes to sway things about my kits when he can, so let me clarify this more! All the shovel nose kits are pretty much identical to the Newton plans. Sponsons on all the hulls are the same visual look of the real boat (other than the 108 kit's outside sponson, and I had plans to change that anyways, it was already changed in gas form). The change in break point on most of the kits, is not drastic, only a few frames. Some are up to the sponson heal. On pretty much all of them its hard to even tell when looking from the top of the hull onto the deck or sides. With that being said, I think there is an "aura" around my kits that they are totally wiped clean of the original design, and that is very, very far from the truth. I have never modified deck curvatures, ram entrance angles, or shapes on the top sides of the hulls away from the Newton plans. I have kept all that intact as best as possible. I even have the framing laser etched to match all the newton plan numbers, so that the plans are your instruction manual.

The Extreme kits...well, they are ment to be just that, legal, and bad as hell. They are fast, and stable, and are my own little twist on making a fast scale race hull that is so simple to build!

This is why I posted this thread in the first place....because I know I can easily adjust break points back to their original location in a minimal amount of time and it should then fit RCU easily. I have actually worked hard on correcting some of the plans to be more like the original hull..the 8255 being a prime example..it had the tunnel width on the plans brought out 1" past the center width on the master hull roster, I brought it back to the centered width, and the boat responded very well as both versions have been tested.

I didn't want this to turn into a "why I should not be modifying these kits, that I am the devil post". I wanted to extend my help to RCU so they didn't feel they couldn't use the kits. I respect their club goals, which is why I wanted them to know that!

Mark, You should call me some time, and learn more about me, and what I am trying to do for the Scale guys. I think you would find I am not the evil person you have, over the years, felt I am. If I was, its doubtful anyone would want my kits. 20 minutes with me on the phone and you will realize what I am really about. I spend countless hours on the phone trying to guide people in a direction I feel fits their build experience. I have turned away people that I could tell were getting in over their head, and passed on a name of another builder that may better suit their needs. My goal is for people to build the kit, not shelf it...that helps no one. I take phone calls Sunday at 11pm in the evening at times, talking for an hour or two with people. What starts as a customer, turns into a friendship down the road. Answered questions about setting up someone elses hull design, or guiding them to the person that would have the correct answer. Reading my "reactions" on a public forum is not the way to truely know who you are dealing with. Ask any of the guys in RCU..some of them met me in person. I am as laid back as they come. True, I WILL defend myself when pushed, but I generally want to help move this sport forward. I love designing, love testing, and love being able to offer some quality stuff! Thanks, Mike

 

[Hydro Junkie]

Don, there is nothing hypocritical about my 1999 Madison build at all. When I ordered plans from Roger way back when, the plans I received were for the 8701, the boat the 8806 Madison was based on. After the reworking and turbinizing of the boat at the Bud shop, the 8701 plans no longer applied to the 8806 due to the major changes made to the hull. My boat was built INTEGRATING THE CHANGES MADE TO THE FULL SIZED BOAT USING MEASUREMENTS TAKEN FROM THE FULL SIZED BOAT. Thus, my boat is built as close as I can to being a true scale and not a stand off model.

Mike, I never said your changes were bad and I said that was MY THOUGHTS on the subject when I replied to Don. I don't know what was said between you, Robert and David so I won't try to go there. I based my reply on the builds you have done and posted, listing the changes you made to the design along the way. If this is a case where I applied what was done to some as being done to all incorrectly, I stand corrected

I can see this is one of those threads where my 40 years of building boats and working with Roger on two full sized restorations shows I know nothing about boats so I'm out.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Alrighty then, so be it.

Now it would be great to hear from some of the seasoned racers in RCU as to their take on this.

 

[raptor347]

So, no Velasco hulls in RCU. That's easy to remember.

Stock or modified, Mike's kits are fantastic. Probably the best wood kits this hobby has seen in 25 years. They remind me of the quality of the old Bridi and Airtonics airplane kits form the 70-80's.

The per Rogers plans $Bill gasser I drove last year was great, definitely a challenge to tune and drive.

 

[glenng]

So, no Velasco hulls in RCU. That's easy to remember.

Stock or modified, Mike's kits are fantastic. Probably the best wood kits this hobby has seen in 25 years. They remind me of the quality of the old Bridi and Airtonics airplane kits form the 70-80's.

The per Rogers plans $Bill gasser I drove last year was great, definitely a challenge to tune and drive.

I'm a little confused here -is RCU in WA wanting to change NAMBA regs.-or splinter off on their own? I just read a few days ago Brian has the molds for the Velasco hulls. I would like to think only two people would not be able to re-write the rules and leave people with "obsolete boats"

 

[P THOMAS]

Let RCU be RCU if they want pure scale hulls ok. I think most of them build scratch from plans anyways not many production hulls.

 

[SayMikey]

I think they just want another class to race. I cant see them going away from what they currently run.

 

[jwo]

Ok guys, RCU is not trying to re-write NAMBA rules or make available hulls obsolete. We use NAMBA ins. but we do have our own rules. Velasco hulls and most all manufacture's hulls are legal to run in RCU if they meet our Master hull roster. RCU has a few semi scale hulls currently running. We would like to see more true scale's. Examples would be the confusing a 7207 hull (72 Notre Dame) with a 7474 hull (Olympia Beer) although they look the same they are not. The transom on the 7207 has a cut out. So should the model. The 86 Boat ran with a wing. We let it run with out. I don't know why. The few mods being done to kits or production hulls take away from the Scale appearance. The SG110H from R/C Boat Co. is another good example. although it is legal to run it is not a true scale. RCU has a host of true scale hulls that run as good if not better than a modified version. RCU is the premier scale club in the world. We need to get back to it.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Let's expand on this some.........

While I'm all about being as accurate as possible in a scale build I think we are talking about two different things- true to scale vs. correct/accurate builds. I totally agree with John about things like the Notre Dame's notched transom and the Oly running without the rear wing (I hate the idea of duplicating "broken" boats) but to me that is being correct/accurate in the build. Now if you want to talk about being "true to scale" the vast majority of Roger's plans are modified from what a true scaled down drawing would be. While I have the utmost respect for what he did for the hobby he took liberties when the plans were done back in the day to make the boats work better with the motors of that time. The 8255 is a prime example, Roger widened the tunnel to the absolute maximum deviation allowed to pack air under it. Is that "true to scale"? Another boat that quickly comes to mind is the '69 Pay'n Pak outrigger, the Newton plans are very different from the real boat. There are many more examples I could give but you get the point. And even if you build a hull that is really "true to scale" in many cases the boat isn't going to work well without adding weight to keep it on the water. For example, build a scale Bud T-4 with the same AOA in the 4 ram wings that tie the sponsons to the center section as the real boat and it will usually leave the water at about 45mph. How do I know this? I've built 3 of them over the years. I feel the best compromise is to stress the accuracy of what's "top side" while allowing changes to things like the tunnel AOA or ride pads to make a better performing more reliable boat to race. You shouldn't have to fill a boat full of lead just to keep it on the water. To quote another I/W member's signature line- the stone age didn't end because they ran out of stones. A certain amount of "improvements" for the sake of performance and reliability combined with adhering to the accuracy of how the boat appears "top side" is where we need to be to move the scale racing in a positive direction in my opinion.

Flak jacket now firmly in place.

 

[Bill Brandt]

I was not sure how to reach out to RCU any better way than this. I was talking to David Newton and Robert Bracket last week, and David expressed RCU was looking to get back to building the hull bottoms closer to the full size hulls like in the past, and I wanted to make sure RCU knows they have my support with making sure kits for the club fit the possible rules.

Currently, the bottoms of my kits are changed from the Newton plans to help handle todays power systems, and break points are moved forward, not only for blow off safety, but for the FE guys to have the room they need to get center of gravity correct. These changes fit the current IMPBA and NAMBA rules. With that being said, I do not mind making copies of my current kit, and making the needed changes back toward the Newton plans.

I don't want anyone left out of being able to build the hull they want in the manor they need. While I want to continue progressively evolve whats needed to handle the speeds new motors/ engines are capable of, and will do that through the standard kits and the extreme kits I offer, I want everyone to know if they need it old school..I will try and make that happen! Thanks for RCU's support of my kits so far. I hope to continue working with you moving forward! Mike Luszcz

I am in dis belief what is going on here. The following is my post I made via Facebook earlier today. I will post again after that is listed.

Facebook post of Bill Brandt

Although I chair RCU I am only speaking for myself. That being said I consistently hear that Newton plans for AirTrap require adjustment to allow for today's power. Otherwise the boats become kites. RCU rules allow for mods below the waterline so I'm uncertain of any concern.

My biggest concern has to do with attracting new racers. I hear concerns of being true to scale but when I also hear claims that we should consider outlawing hulls from certain nationally known kit makers that is a great bother to me. This only serves as a deterrent to the new racer.

We need to be cautiously accommodating if we want to grow. I/we are not all master craftsman builders.

Of course this all will continue to be debated.

One thing is for sure. Mike Luszcz you are surely appreciated for what you bring and do for the sport.

 

[Bill Brandt]

I am the current Chairman of RC Unlimiteds. My sons family and I have raced with RCU since 1996. We run .67 Scale Nitro.

Any individual commenting on this thread should state, like I did, what they are saying is only their opinion.

Mike says he talked to David Newton and Robert Brackett about what RCU was trying to do..... The board speaks for RCU and there have not been any commitments pro or con by the board to make any changes in current practices regarding the building of scale boats. Both David Newton and Robert Brackett race FE Scale, not nitro. The hulls they run are of a modern era.

This type of debate is serving to do nothing more than fragment the club.

We have rules and I think we should follow the rules. However, we have a rule that allows modifications below the waterline. So who is trying to create new rules? The board is not!

Someones bow block on a 8255 is not scale. Well you're better at seeing that than me. It looks like a nice scale of the American Speedy or Coors to me. David Newton drove a 7-11 that the bow block was claimed to not be scale. It looked like a nice 7-11 to me.

Biggest point I want to make here is, it's important that as club members we don't make the mistake of inadvertently leading others to believe that what we say is what the club position is on a subject. It is, at best, ones own opinion.

Mike, I wouldn't spend a bunch of time on this for now if I were you. As long as I'm chair my efforts may be to help mold and improve on scale quality but I want people to come and race. I don't want to tell them to go home.

A close friend commented to me about a year ago, "RCU was originally formed by a group of modelers that then decided to race. Over many years it has evolved and attracted very strong Racers that try to make there scales look as close to the real thing as they can."

Efforts by all radio control enthusiasts should be spent trying to build their numbers. Fragmentation efforts clearly are a deterrent to that.

Please read Don Ferrettes original post. He calls it as he sees it.

 

[Mike Cathey]

We could see if the engine manufacturers want to build loop scavenged-ringed engines too.

LMAO!! Now THAT is funny right there. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Maybe we can go back to building 25 lb. boats and build them true scale and then power them down accordingly with .35 Super Tigres or McCoys with cool clamps and sponson mounted water pick ups, hard shafts and use Kraft radios as well on them. Then they would go scale speed too, yawn -_- . Hell, why bother going to the effort and expense of building scale boats at all. We can just all race Miss Vegas boats and be done with it. I was at the 2002 RCU Gold Cup in Chelan and there was I think 54 boats at the race. There were 11 or 12 nitro boats this weekend at Ellensberg. UNW has been getting similar numbers at their races. I would say that now is not such a great time to be picking the fly poop out of the pepper. All classes of racing evolve. The faster you go the more things you have to do for stability and cornering and because of the aero involved with hydroplanes you have to address that as well. A stock CMB Greenhead is probably putting out nearly twice the power of stock K&B's when Roger started the class. Fact is that most of the guys still doing this are gray hairs like me. I grew up in Seattle when the hydros were the BIG Deal sporting event of the year. There were no pro sports teams then. There are lots of guys in RCU from the Tri-Cities who had the same experience. Today there are just not very many kids or younger people that care much about unlimited hydroplane racing. Too many other things to do. It's rare to see a young fella involved in scale racing who isn't doing it as a father/son experience via dad's wallet. I haven't seen a kid dragging around a plywood hydroplane behind his bike and making hydro sounds in 30 years.

 

[Mike McKnight]

Guys there will always be the absolute scale purist...or someone that thinks they are. This, in my opinion as a Scale Chairman at two different levels, is why we have so much fragmentation going on. Nitpicking is never productive but especially now more than ever. If the current rules of NAMBA/IMPBA/RCU allow mods to what's below the waterline then so be it. The genie has been out for some time and isn't going back in the bottle. Back in the day 1/8 scale nitro was king well that's not the case anymore. Now the 1/8 scale FEs are making twice as much or more power too. Now there are Gas Scales that are going to have a completely different performance to power curve. And the 1/10 scales have their own performance issues to overcome too. So now besides the fragmentation of clubs now there's the competition from other classes of scale. Am I saying we should build "broken boats"? No...I think that subject of missing or omitted parts has been beat to death but it still comes up. But modifying breakpoints in the airtrap and modding the ride surfaces is necessary to a point. It has to be in order for the hobby to evolve. And whether you believe it or not it has and continues to evolve even faster as technology changes at a faster pace.

 

[Duck899]

Here in Canada, we have rules that we all need to abide by which includes drivers with steering wheels, guages, clear windshields on enclosed cockpit hulls, no exposed tuned pipes, etc. We take pride in re-creating as best we can the hull as it ran. The 10% rule leaves alot of discretion and you build accordingly with subtle adjustments to improve the model. We also encourage damaged boats be repaired as quickly as possible (I believe 3 races timeline) in order to not tarnish the class. I see no issue with things the way they are now. If someone wants to build a completely scale hull and race, then great. It can only help the class. We try to promote the class, as well as other classes and help the new scale guys with their hulls with constructive comments.

I have been to a few races over the years and the one thing I have noticed in the last couple years is the quality of workmanship in the boats. It has gotten better. Lets try to work together to help one another and others in the quest for the best we can do.

I appreciate the help of the manufacturers of scale products as it just makes the models much more detailed and rewards the owner with an occasional nice comment.