Dear RC Unlimiteds members of Washington State,

[lohring]

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 second Brian's comments. A great team of experienced racers helped with a few simple sponson modifications to make this true scale boat fast. See Scaling Up for a description. Since then the sponson bottoms have been further reinforced and are holding up better.

Lohring Miller

 

[Mike Luszcz]

Thanks for all the feedback everyone, especially the RCU members. I am actually left more confused than ever from the email and discussion I had with David. I was of the understanding there were multiple people that were not pleased with some of the things they were seeing in the bottoms of the kits, evening deeming the 172 extreme kit illegal. From what I am hearing now this may not really be the case. Either way, I just want everyone to know, no matter what you require as a builder, I want to do my best to accomodate that. If its for even a static model, I will do what I can. I am always busy on the design side and over the last year, have been extremely busy on the building, and kit side of things, and unfortunately have a lot of stuff that is over a year old to design, but if its something I can fit it, you better believe I will do it! That was the whole jist of this thread.

I just wanted to make sure no one was mad at the changes and wanted to give myself the opportunity to make sure things were OK in the future. As most of you know, I don't get to race much. I truely enjoy the design side, and live vicariously through your accomplishments. Heck, I was building model fishing boats from cardboard when I was 5 years old. I grew up around the water, so this whole thing feels natural I guess! I enjoy the emails I get every day from satisfied customers/ friends and hope to keep hearing those stories until the day I am gone!

I will PM Bob more about this today as well. Thanks again for the continued support, and I am proud to say there are somewhere around 600-700 new scale (of different sizes) kits being built world wide since this thing started. I feel like it has opened up new opportunities for other talented people in the world of scale boating to offer more products to compliment the kits and help the whole thing grow. Weather its sending people to Phil T. for wing kits/ cowlings, or to Steve G. for cowlings, or Mike M. for decals, or David N. for paint and sheeting sheets, I send out these guys names to customers daily to support them. Shoot, the gas scale to me, is a huge upcoming class, and if there are guys out there that have the ability to offer parts for that class, speak up! We need you!

A guess at this point, this thread has probably served its purpose. I hope that those that wish to continue the discussions, hopefully in a productive way, will continue to do so. I will be around! Thanks, Mike

 

[PakMan]

Wow! Great insight and response within 30 minutes of Mike's post, Don. Thanks for your engagement in this discussion! And, thanks to Bill Brandt for making two well thought out posts (#16, & #17) that appear to me to be spot-on as well, and in the best interest of the club. After having been a member in RCU for 30 years, it seems to me that PULLING PEOPLE TOGETHER is what will help grow numbers, no matter the class. Figuring out how to allow the most people run in a class that is fun to them is where people will go. In the case of RCU - I think since the beginning, (and in the evolution over the years) the rules were developed to do just that. Allow 'Pure Scale' folks to build and run, allow the builders and tuners play below the waterline (within the tolerance of the rules!!) to try and create the fastest and most stable race boat. Thank you Mike Luszcz for being open to creating what the people want, and helping us come together, no matter the power plant, or scale size. Sorry for the run-on paragraph. For some reason my computer is not allowing me to space down with the 'enter' key. Sincerely, David Jensen

 

[Mike Luszcz]

I spoke to Bill Brandt for a while this evening via phone, and he confirmed RCU has no current plans on changing the rules as they currently stand, so no one should worry. He was a pleasure to talk to, and a great representative as chair of RCU. I think RCU is in great hands. I would also like to thank David Jensen for posting here as well. I had no idea he was one of the founders of RCU, so thank you for your input. Having the input of some of the deep roots of RCU has me feeling so much better about the situation! Thanks guys, Mike

 

[PakMan]

The thanks goes to you two, Mike and Bill. Thanks to both of you for taking the time, and making the effort to make a phone call and remove the interpretation that many times gets lost in the postings from behind the keyboard. I am not a founder of RCU, but both my Uncle Bill Smiley and Father Gary Jensen were close to Roger when RCU was formed in the Mid 70's. I started racing 1/8 scale in 1982, at the age of 14. Previously, I had been racing mostly mono hulls. Thanks Again!!! Sincerely, David Jensen

 

[miniczar]

Hey guys,

I just want to clear the air. My intention was never to have Mike stop producing his modified kits. Over the last couple of months I have had a several guys from districts all over the area talk to me about receiving a higlhly modified hull when they thought they were getting a hull straight from my father's plans. My only hope was for Mike to make it possible for racers to order the boat in either format to better suit their interests.

I am one of the racers that was brought into this hobby due to the love of the actual sport of unlimited hydroplanes. I am fully aware that there are many people in the hobby not for the love of the sport, but just to go fast and only have racing in mind. As both are completely elacceptable they compliment eachother and make the club and hobby better as a whole.

Bill, please stop spreading rumors about me. I have raced the nitro class two times this year and I still have all my nitro gear which I told you I was bringing out to the Columbia Cup. Yes I have not raced nitro at every race this year, but that does not mean I am only a FE racer. There are many personal reasons for why I decide what I am going to race this year, and if you would like to know why you should come talk to me personally instead of making assumptions.

 

[Bill Brandt]

Any further response in this forum is not helpful.

David

I am open to your call or talk at a race anytime.

For those that can't tell it here I consider David Newton to be a great guy and good friend.

Bill

 

[Don Ferrette]

"Over the last couple of months I have had a several guys from districts all over the area talk to me about receiving a highly modified hull when they thought they were getting a hull straight from my father's plans."

Ya know I was going to let this thread sit but that statement just ain't sitting very well with me. To begin with why on earth if "several guys from districts all over" had issues would they not contact Mike first to inquire rather than just call you David? I asked Mike about that yesterday and no one has complained to him about what you are claiming. And second, the vast majority are not "highly modified" but have received minor tweaks to make them better performing and more reliable for today's environment, the same kind of tweaks that your dad did when he originally drew the plans to make them better back then. As I said in my first post my personal feeling here is there is more to this than is being presented on the surface because things just aren't adding up. This isn't about being "true to scale" because if it was then people would be having issues with the plans as drawn because they were not "true to scale" to begin with and numerous having major changes done compared to the real boats. If this upsets a few of you so be it but until somebody puts something out there to definitively show otherwise I'm not buyin' the storyline.............

 

[Greg Hahn]

Guess I'll chime in here just for a minute. Building models "true to scale" is actually silly unless you're building for static display (non-running). It's the same with airplanes if built "true to scale" they usually won't fly and if they do they won't fly very well. Water like air doesn't scale down so changes must be made to airfoils and incidence to compensate. Are we going to run scale size props? Are we going to run scale HP to weight ratio? Who in the world would want to tech all the scale boats even if there was time? At the end of the day this is a hobby and suppose to be a fun distraction from everyday life, lets keep it that way. We sure don't want to make this any more difficult or costly than it already is. We need numbers and new bodies entering the hobby, let's not be a kill joy! gh

 

[Don Ferrette]

Guess I'll chime in here just for a minute. Building models "true to scale" is actually silly unless you're building for static display (non-running). It's the same with airplanes if built "true to scale" they usually won't fly and if they do they won't fly very well. Water like air doesn't scale down so changes must be made to airfoils and incidence to compensate. Are we going to run scale size props? Are we going to run scale HP to weight ratio? Who in the world would want to tech all the scale boats even if there was time? At the end of the day this is a hobby and suppose to be a fun distraction from everyday life, lets keep it that way. We sure don't want to make this any more difficult or costly than it already is. We need numbers and new bodies entering the hobby, let's not be a kill joy! gh

AMEN my scale brutha!!! Someone give Greg a cigar!!
....... and BTW- Greg is the Technical Director for the AMA so I think he just might know a little bit about what true to scale actually means.

 

[Dan Kramer]

when the real boats were build in the 40-50 60 -70 and so on era, do we think that if they had the information and technoligy we have today, they would have not used it ? i think all were built with one thing in mind , to win. you dont get sponsors to build loosers.

when i got my 1st plans from roger in 92 , he told me the plans were modified to make the boat handle better and corner better, but were within the rules at the time. if the old timers were building boats today, do you think they would build using the newest methods?

its called progress, and it marches on .

we can all be so thankful we have mike(ml boatworks) to do this for us. he is helping bring back and alive boat building to a new era.

thanks, and a happy 4th of july!

dan

 

[Marty Shallenberger]

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.

Marty, on 25 August 2011 - 08:33 PM, said:

Don - Since you brought up the Wingless Oly as a broken boat I thought it was appropriate to repost this from 2011

Don Ferrette, on 24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

Keep in mind that pic without the wing was because the boat got damaged and they took the wing off during that race weekend. I was considering doing the Oly a few years ago because I heard she ran without the wing but once I learned it was due to damage and not a planned race configuration I decided against it.

 

Don - When I built my Gas Scale version of the Oly Beer Boat I checked into the history of the boat because as a general rule we do not allow replicas of broken boats to be registered in any of the NAMBA District eight family of Scale Racing clubs, PNWTA- UNW - RCU- ERCU and Electric Scale Unlimiteds. What I found out from the local Hydroplane and Race-Boat Museum historian is that the boat was purposely run with out the wing at the Dayton race due to the short course. I also confirmed that with the owner of the 1/8 scale version that runs without the wing in the UNW club and he told me that he spoke with Billy directly about the wing issue and he confirmed it was by choice. So as far as I'm concerned we have done the research on the wing question and as the current NAMBA scale chairman I rule that it can run with or with out the wing within NAMBA. If anyone has any proof that the information that I have is not correct please let me know

 

Hi Marty, thanks for the info, that'll be a cut, paste and save in case I reconsider doing the Oly down the road. Had I not already invested the $$ and bought the paint for the '78 Bud I'd seriously consider.the Oly now.

I have a lot to say about this post over all but it will do no good to keep adding fuel to the fire - Please enjoy what ever you get out of this hobby and remember "Gas Scale Rocks"

Marty

 

[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.

Marty, on 25 August 2011 - 08:33 PM, said:

Don - Since you brought up the Wingless Oly as a broken boat I thought it was appropriate to repost this from 2011

Don Ferrette, on 24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

Keep in mind that pic without the wing was because the boat got damaged and they took the wing off during that race weekend. I was considering doing the Oly a few years ago because I heard she ran without the wing but once I learned it was due to damage and not a planned race configuration I decided against it.

 

Don - When I built my Gas Scale version of the Oly Beer Boat I checked into the history of the boat because as a general rule we do not allow replicas of broken boats to be registered in any of the NAMBA District eight family of Scale Racing clubs, PNWTA- UNW - RCU- ERCU and Electric Scale Unlimiteds. What I found out from the local Hydroplane and Race-Boat Museum historian is that the boat was purposely run with out the wing at the Dayton race due to the short course. I also confirmed that with the owner of the 1/8 scale version that runs without the wing in the UNW club and he told me that he spoke with Billy directly about the wing issue and he confirmed it was by choice. So as far as I'm concerned we have done the research on the wing question and as the current NAMBA scale chairman I rule that it can run with or with out the wing within NAMBA. If anyone has any proof that the information that I have is not correct please let me know

 

Hi Marty, thanks for the info, that'll be a cut, paste and save in case I reconsider doing the Oly down the road. Had I not already invested the $$ and bought the paint for the '78 Bud I'd seriously consider.the Oly now.

I have a lot to say about this post over all but it will do no good to keep adding fuel to the fire - Please enjoy what ever you get out of this hobby and remember "Gas Scale Rocks"

Marty

Hi Marty,Yeah I remember that now and that post from back then only shows building "broken boats" is something I've never really agreed with. But that is not the issue here, the topic at hand is this whole "true to scale" angle being played and difference between that vs. accuracy in the build. I'm still convinced there is something more to this that goes beyond the storyline being presented and chatting privately with a few of my west coast friends I'm not alone riding that train of thought. Sorry if that adds fuel to the fire but someone else put a match to the pile of kindling...................

 

[jwo]

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.

Marty, on 25 August 2011 - 08:33 PM, said:

Don - Since you brought up the Wingless Oly as a broken boat I thought it was appropriate to repost this from 2011

Don Ferrette, on 24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

Keep in mind that pic without the wing was because the boat got damaged and they took the wing off during that race weekend. I was considering doing the Oly a few years ago because I heard she ran without the wing but once I learned it was due to damage and not a planned race configuration I decided against it.

 

Don - When I built my Gas Scale version of the Oly Beer Boat I checked into the history of the boat because as a general rule we do not allow replicas of broken boats to be registered in any of the NAMBA District eight family of Scale Racing clubs, PNWTA- UNW - RCU- ERCU and Electric Scale Unlimiteds. What I found out from the local Hydroplane and Race-Boat Museum historian is that the boat was purposely run with out the wing at the Dayton race due to the short course. I also confirmed that with the owner of the 1/8 scale version that runs without the wing in the UNW club and he told me that he spoke with Billy directly about the wing issue and he confirmed it was by choice. So as far as I'm concerned we have done the research on the wing question and as the current NAMBA scale chairman I rule that it can run with or with out the wing within NAMBA. If anyone has any proof that the information that I have is not correct please let me know

 

Hi Marty, thanks for the info, that'll be a cut, paste and save in case I reconsider doing the Oly down the road. Had I not already invested the $$ and bought the paint for the '78 Bud I'd seriously consider.the Oly now.

I have a lot to say about this post over all but it will do no good to keep adding fuel to the fire - Please enjoy what ever you get out of this hobby and remember "Gas Scale Rocks"

Marty

Hi Marty,Yeah I remember that now and that post from back then only shows building "broken boats" is something I've never really agreed with. But that is not the issue here, the topic at hand is this whole "true to scale" angle being played and difference between that vs. accuracy in the build. I'm still convinced there is something more to this that goes beyond the storyline being presented and chatting privately with a few of my west coast friends I'm not alone riding that train of thought. Sorry if that adds fuel to the fire but someone else put a match to the pile of kindling...................

Don I think you are carrying this "true to scale" thing to far. If a hull meets the roster dimensions it is legal to race. Nothing more or less. No conspiracy going on. We all have modified the designs to meet our expectations. Moving breaks forward, lowering bow blocks, adding or removing air traps sponson angles and so forth. It's when they stop looking like the full size is when I have an issue with them. Like the SG110H from R/C Boat Co. or the version from ML Boatworks . These hulls do not look like the full size. Mike's looks great from the top, but from the side it does not resemble the real thing. The SG110H is way off. They both run great and meet the hull roster specs but that's as far as they go. The original Velasco hull looks as scale as they get with the exception of no air trap. My opinion. Not trying to ruffle feathers. I have a few of Mikes kits and a Velasco as well as a host of others including my current hull the Vernors. It has modified sponson's and the break is where it should be. In the back. They all meet the roster looks like the real one and are very fast.

 

[Mike Cathey]

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.

Marty, on 25 August 2011 - 08:33 PM, said:

Don - Since you brought up the Wingless Oly as a broken boat I thought it was appropriate to repost this from 2011

Don Ferrette, on 24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

Keep in mind that pic without the wing was because the boat got damaged and they took the wing off during that race weekend. I was considering doing the Oly a few years ago because I heard she ran without the wing but once I learned it was due to damage and not a planned race configuration I decided against it.

 

Don - When I built my Gas Scale version of the Oly Beer Boat I checked into the history of the boat because as a general rule we do not allow replicas of broken boats to be registered in any of the NAMBA District eight family of Scale Racing clubs, PNWTA- UNW - RCU- ERCU and Electric Scale Unlimiteds. What I found out from the local Hydroplane and Race-Boat Museum historian is that the boat was purposely run with out the wing at the Dayton race due to the short course. I also confirmed that with the owner of the 1/8 scale version that runs without the wing in the UNW club and he told me that he spoke with Billy directly about the wing issue and he confirmed it was by choice. So as far as I'm concerned we have done the research on the wing question and as the current NAMBA scale chairman I rule that it can run with or with out the wing within NAMBA. If anyone has any proof that the information that I have is not correct please let me know

 

Hi Marty, thanks for the info, that'll be a cut, paste and save in case I reconsider doing the Oly down the road. Had I not already invested the $$ and bought the paint for the '78 Bud I'd seriously consider.the Oly now.

I have a lot to say about this post over all but it will do no good to keep adding fuel to the fire - Please enjoy what ever you get out of this hobby and remember "Gas Scale Rocks"

Marty

Hi Marty,Yeah I remember that now and that post from back then only shows building "broken boats" is something I've never really agreed with. But that is not the issue here, the topic at hand is this whole "true to scale" angle being played and difference between that vs. accuracy in the build. I'm still convinced there is something more to this that goes beyond the storyline being presented and chatting privately with a few of my west coast friends I'm not alone riding that train of thought. Sorry if that adds fuel to the fire but someone else put a match to the pile of kindling...................

Well Don, since you sold me the Bud paint you can go for 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.

Marty, on 25 August 2011 - 08:33 PM, said:

Don - Since you brought up the Wingless Oly as a broken boat I thought it was appropriate to repost this from 2011

Don Ferrette, on 24 August 2011 - 08:11 AM, said:

 

Keep in mind that pic without the wing was because the boat got damaged and they took the wing off during that race weekend. I was considering doing the Oly a few years ago because I heard she ran without the wing but once I learned it was due to damage and not a planned race configuration I decided against it.

 

Don - When I built my Gas Scale version of the Oly Beer Boat I checked into the history of the boat because as a general rule we do not allow replicas of broken boats to be registered in any of the NAMBA District eight family of Scale Racing clubs, PNWTA- UNW - RCU- ERCU and Electric Scale Unlimiteds. What I found out from the local Hydroplane and Race-Boat Museum historian is that the boat was purposely run with out the wing at the Dayton race due to the short course. I also confirmed that with the owner of the 1/8 scale version that runs without the wing in the UNW club and he told me that he spoke with Billy directly about the wing issue and he confirmed it was by choice. So as far as I'm concerned we have done the research on the wing question and as the current NAMBA scale chairman I rule that it can run with or with out the wing within NAMBA. If anyone has any proof that the information that I have is not correct please let me know

 

Hi Marty, thanks for the info, that'll be a cut, paste and save in case I reconsider doing the Oly down the road. Had I not already invested the $$ and bought the paint for the '78 Bud I'd seriously consider.the Oly now.

I have a lot to say about this post over all but it will do no good to keep adding fuel to the fire - Please enjoy what ever you get out of this hobby and remember "Gas Scale Rocks"

Marty

Hi Marty,Yeah I remember that now and that post from back then only shows building "broken boats" is something I've never really agreed with. But that is not the issue here, the topic at hand is this whole "true to scale" angle being played and difference between that vs. accuracy in the build. I'm still convinced there is something more to this that goes beyond the storyline being presented and chatting privately with a few of my west coast friends I'm not alone riding that train of thought. Sorry if that adds fuel to the fire but someone else put a match to the pile of kindling...................

Well Don, since you sold me the Bud paint you can go for it.

LOL! to be honest if I do anything with the undrilled Velasco hull on the shelf I have to admit I've recently grown to like the Gilmore Special. B)

 

[Don Ferrette]

Don I think you are carrying this "true to scale" thing to far. If a hull meets the roster dimensions it is legal to race. Nothing more or less. No conspiracy going on. We all have modified the designs to meet our expectations. Moving breaks forward, lowering bow blocks, adding or removing air traps sponson angles and so forth. It's when they stop looking like the full size is when I have an issue with them. Like the SG110H from R/C Boat Co. or the version from ML Boatworks . These hulls do not look like the full size. Mike's looks great from the top, but from the side it does not resemble the real thing. The SG110H is way off. They both run great and meet the hull roster specs but that's as far as they go. The original Velasco hull looks as scale as they get with the exception of no air trap. My opinion. Not trying to ruffle feathers. I have a few of Mikes kits and a Velasco as well as a host of others including my current hull the Vernors. It has modified sponson's and the break is where it should be. In the back. They all meet the roster looks like the real one and are very fast.

John, as I said before I wasn't the one who opened this "true to scale" can of worms but I wish RCU all the best and hope that the powers that be continue the club down the road of progress. At this point this thread is going nowhere so I think it's time to lay it to rest. Happy 4th of July to all and hope everyone has a great season.

 

[Don Ferrette]

Against my better judgement I'm going to re-open this thread. I received a p/m from someone who was not happy that I closed it before he had a chance to post but that is not why I'm re-opening it. What has caused me to reconsider was partly because of what was said but more so because the term "cheater" came up and that hasn't sat well with me. I requested that person copy and paste in it's entirety what he said in his last p/m to the forum as the basis for re-opening. This time I'm going to let this thread run it's course even if it heads straight for the pooper. I expect everyone to keep the language clean and stay on topic but beyond that feel free to speak openly.............

 

[Mike Luszcz]

I realize some feel they know better than the current rules, and their opinions don't even make sense. I mean seriously, you say break points in the tunnel should stay correct....where the heck is correct..there is no master hull roster on that, there never will be, and saying the Newton plans should be followed is nuts. First off, Roger changed things, second...there are not Newton frame plans for every hull!!!! So how do you expect us to figure out break points on hulls that don't even have plans. Next, people say "everything should be scale" , well answer me this...you gonna add 200-400lbs to your hull so the screwed up rear break points in the tunnels function like the full size...I mean, we have to keep it scale right??? Even at 50mph, we are running probably double the scale speed..take in account the break point, lack of proper scale weight, and the fact your wind and waves are still full size, and all this mess makes no sense to me. Call it a cheater boat if you want, but the fact is, I have adjusted for physics and safety. I don't consider keeping the hull safely on the water a crutch, I consider it keeping your $3000 boat stable, and helping protect someone else's $3000 investment. You know, when I first started doing kits, people got upset about the breaks not changing, so I listened to them, made the changes, and the boats started running very well. I guess what I am saying is having 6 boats finish the race seems a lot better than one or two. I dunno, the emails I have been reading have kinda pissed me off...and the funny thing is I have spoken to one of the people that has had to nod his head and agree, and he is very upset with the bickering and fighting....this is NOT what Roger wanted scale rc to turn into...Roger wanted it to be fun, and he was progressive , and he would have weighed the options in the better interest of growth, not turning people away. Please respect the scale sport and him at least that much.

 

[SayMikey]

AMEN Scale racing is all about duplicating the real boats,many areas of the country have grown. Competition is tough,at the end of the day its not even about the boats its about friendships and having fun.