A Note From Ross Jahnke,
July 10, 2003 email Rg2ls@aol.com
I just wanted to follow up (or conclude) the discussion on Baby Bee 40. I
get e-mails once in a while asking about the event and would like to publicly
post what I have been saying to those who enquire.
I put promotion of BB40 on the back burner in Y2K. I did so because I became
increasingly aware of two problems. The first is that providing a fair and
easily applied standard for a "legal" engine was going to be very
difficult. Please refer to my paper on the event in the 2000 Sympo to see
just how complex the engine issue was becoming. The second problem was more
pholosophical. My feeling was that BB40 was a better alternative to Pee Wee
30 (as outlined in the aforementioned paper). Unfortunately I was promoting
a new 1/2A event at the same time that 1/2A NosGas was taking hold and that
Classic Gas was being formulated. That meant that 1/2A engines could be used
in 6 events: BB40, SAM, !/2A NosGas, Classic Gas, AMA Gas, and F1J. I have
always felt that subdivision of the sport was not in our long term interest.
Also in the 2000 Sympo was a paper by my friend Bob Perkins entitled "Millenium
Free Flight rules for AMA". In that paper Bob persuasively argued for
trimming the roster of events rather than adding to it. Though I still think
Baby Bee 40 is a well designed event (except for the engine issue), in the
broader context it is not needed at this time.
To those who wish to hold a BB40 event I still give my encouragement and support.
To those looking for an event like it, I recommend 1/2A Nos Gas because the
designs are similar in size, slightly higher in performance, only slightly
harder to trim, and the engine parameters are better defined (they typically
use a hotter version of the Cox reed valve .049).
I still fly my Tepid Cocoa once in a while, and it will probably be my son's
first F1P (1/2A event number seven!). If circumstances change there may be
a time when Baby Bee 40 can resurface and flourish as an introductory level
gas event. Until that time I recommend that we look at ways to trim our event
roster, in order to maintain a higher level of competion and continue the
development and vitality of free flight.
Ross Jahnke
Recent Baby Bee 40 emails The rules have been evolving mainly via email, previous email are summarized below.
Pictures of Baby Bee 40 prototype models that have been built:
Plans for Baby Bee 40 models:
Viewing PDF files requires an Adobe Acrobat Reader version 3.0 or higher.
You can get the latest version of the Acrobat Reader free from Adobe's Website.
Baby Bee 40 email list The email addresses of those who have chosen to participate in this discussion.
This event was conceived by Ross Jahnke who tried somewhat unsuccessfully to get his kids flying a Pee Wee 30. He reasoned that the readily available good running Cox Babe .049 engines would make a much better beginners motor to get started in free flight with.
From Ross's initial ideas came a flurry of email on the SCAT Electronic News mailing list and between individuals, the interest in this kind of event was high.
The rules have evolved into the following (note: they are not yet 100% finished! We need to discuss the options further and build a few to a set of rules to try them out!)
Proposed set of rules: (these rules are still evolving and have been
1. Cox Baby Bee .049 *
must be used, any glow head allowed.
2. An unmodified Cox 6-3 prop must be used (either the hard gray or the flexible
black nylon one) (recent emails are mixed on this issue,
some favor leaving the prop an open item.
3. No dimension over 40 inches.
4. Minimum weight 250 grams (a tad bit over 8.8 ounces) (recent emails suggest that 200 grams (about 7 ounces) is a better
weight as originally proposed)
5. No auto surfaces, except for DT.
6. No mechanical engine timers allowed, only fuel metering devices such as
an eye dropper permitted. (recent emails are split on
this, some favor allowing timers, even a suggestion from Lee Campbell who
suggests having shorter engine runs for the more accurate timer equiped models,
with no allowances for overruns with either eyedroppers or timers)
7. 15 second engine runs with 2 minute maxes, under 40 sec can be declared
an attempt. 6 attempts to make 3 official flights.Deduct 20 seconds for each
second (or partial second) over 15 sec.
8. Flyoffs if necessary will reduce the engine run to 10 sec, same 2 minute
max and over run penalties (over 10 sec in this case), no attempts in flyoffs.
* the intent here is to use a readily available Baby Bee .049 (with metal tank) or one of the product .049's (with a plastic firewall). These engines can be found used in many places as they powered many Cox Ready to Fly plastic airplanes. Both use a single port cylinder that can be visually identified externally by the stamp on the cylinder (numbers xxxx, yyyy and zzzz are legal. xxxx, yyyy, and zzzz will be filled in with numbers when these rules mature). Hopefully this event will not become a horsepower race, rather an enjoyable one using fairly stock engines.
The following discussions contributed to these proposed set of rules: Please send in you comments as they are still evolving! As the comments grow and the rules mature, I will put these comments in an archive page rather than here on the main page.
initial idea and foundational set of rules (Ross Jahnke):
My son age 3, shows much interest and promise in free flight. Right now he flies small rubber models and hand launch gliders. He is also curious about engines. I tried to run the Cox .020 on my pee wee 30 for him but the engine wasn't cooperating that day. I then pulled out an old baby bee, dormant since my u-control days 20 years ago, and it fired right up. Is there a pee wee 30-like event for the baby bee? Is there support for such an event? Since these engines are so abundant, so forgiving, and in the hands of so many non-free flighters, they might be an excellent choice for an introductory event.
If an event does not exist
how does this proposal sound?
a.) 40" max dimensions in any direction ( or 36" or 200 square inch
wing).
b.) 200 gram minimum weight.
c.) 15 sec. engine run / eye dropper tank (same as pee wee 30).
d.) No auto surfaces except DT (same as pee wee 30).
e.) Power is a stock Baby Bee .049, with single intake port cylinder, and
standard glow head. No mods except a hole in the tank for the fuel line. A
stock plastic tankless backplate / reed valve assembly is acceptable.
f.) No ROG requirement.
Ross Jahnke (8 July 1999)
any glow plugs allowed (Doug Galbreath):
Ross Jahnke's idea for
the pee wee event sounds like a winner if we publicize it in the right places.
We seem to preach to the choir a lot in this hobby, and never reach out and
touch the vast unwashed out there. Or even the half vast ones for that matter.
One thing about the rules Ross proposed: The price of stock glow heads for
the babe bee is twice what the whole engine used to sell for and are damn
near unobtanium anyway. Better just leave the glow plug issue alone and allow
anything that lights up the fire as the performance ain't all that good any
way you run them. That eliminates an easy way to cheat.
Down air really sucks
Doug Galbreath (10 July, 1999)
some initial discussions (Rex Hinson, Roger Morrell, Joe Mekina and Ross Jahnke):
I also would like to throw in my support for Ross Jahnke's proposed baby bee event. I don't see how we could screw it up. Might even get some new fliers into freeflight. Engines out of the plastic u/c models might also be a possibility.
Thanks Ross, its nice to see someone thinking instead of complaining.
Rex Hinson (7-12-99)
***********
It sounds to me that this is something the NNFS would be interested in .. maybe Joe Mekina should promote it on the new NFFS web site ?
Roger Morrell (7-12-99)
***********
Ross,
I have been watching the SCAT electronic news and your proposal for a Baby Bee event that has seemed to catch hold. I agree, there needs to be something like it as the Pee Wee .020's are finicky, and to compete (or even fly successfully in the case of a youngster) you have to have a "good" one. Your idea is a good one!
I propose to promote the event on the NFFS website (as Roger Morrel also suggested the SCAT electronic news). I also agree with Doug Galbreath's follow on suggestion making any head legal. Cox heads are now very expensive! I believe they are around $10 now! This is also parallel to the way Nostalgia has evolved as heads are either expensive or non-existent and should not be the hardest (or most expensive) thing on the model, after all they burn out!
I have a bit of research to do (namely look up the current Pee Wee 30 rules and see how they read), but then plan on setting up a Baby Bee-40 event forum on the NFFS website. Its purpose will be to toss out ideas, entertain comments, and to formulate as set of rules.
But off the cuff, from my memory, I recall the PeeWee 30 event as having a funky max/engine point system, with no over runs but a penalty in points. The rules as I recall them say take the max time (120 sec) and multiply them by 100 then divide them by the engine run (15 for runs of 15 sec or less, the actual run times for runs over 15 sec). So for max scoring it is in the contestants best interest to not run a run longer than 15.
I personally believe that Babe Bee powered airplanes (at 200 grams and max dimensions of 40 ") are robust enough to carry a timer. To me it is simpler to carry a timer than not, thought I may be in the minority here. I would therefore propose to just run simple 15 sec engine run -120 sec max rules. Going down to 10 sec for flyoffs.
I also need to talk to a few people about how to specify the engine, probably a mix of "can have's" and "can not have's". Baby Bee and Product .049's are OK... Tee Dee, Medallions, etc not OK. Lee Campbell is very familiar with the Cox line and I will get with him on this.
But for the most part, good idea, I believe you got the span right at 40 inches, and the weight of 200 grams seems about right too.
While I have not in the past been in favor of yet "another" event, I truly believe we need one like this to attract people, young and old. And Cox .049's are a great way to go!
So, in light of the above, how does this sound?
Baby Bee-40 (proposed rules)
a.) 40" max dimensions
in any direction.
b.) 200 gram minimum weight (a tad bit over 7 ounces).
c.) No auto surfaces except DT.
d.) Power is a stock Baby Bee .049 (or product .049), with single intake port
cylinder, any glow head allowed.
e.) 15 sec max engine run, 120 sec max, flyoffs 10 sec engine run, same 120
sec max. 6 attempts to make 3 official flights, 40 sec or less can be declared
an attempt. No attempts on flyoffs.
Again, I am not hard over on not using the funky rules, which pretty much go hand and hand with eyedroppers. But to me it is far easier to just put a timer on it than to fool with filling the eyedropper and adding to it while running, needling etc.. If it appears that the majority of people want to go with eyedroppers and ban timers and use the funky rules, great. Perhaps this should be one of the first things that get ironed out in a forum? I could structure the page to facilitate this discussion.
Anyways, thought I'd toss this back to you for your comment before I set up the web page. I will not post the page till I hear your thoughts.
Joe Mekina (7-12-99)
***********
Joe,
thank you for pursuing the Baby Bee event! I to don't like to add new events willy-nilly but this one has real potential to offer access to newcomers.
I agree with the glow head suggestion, now that I'm aware of the cost issue.
I think the Pee Wee 30 eye dropper / flight time rules are a bit convoluted as well. The reason I want the dropper is because timers are expensive (as costly as the engine) and hard for non-free flighters to obtain. Also this adds the need for a real gas tank of some sort which is hard to mount and use. (I have never successfully used a bladder tank for instance).
How about eyedroppers with a 5 or 10 second penalty for every second of over run past 15 seconds? That way you can't max if you over run but the math is simple. Then an over run doesn't totally spoil a flight either. Or both could be offered with no over run allowed if a timer is used. I like the rest of your flight time suggestions however. I would like you to open the debate, and I will go with what the people prefer.
Ross (7-12-99)
*************
Joe,
I also agree that the Pee Wee 30 points system is weird. I suggest the dropper tank because timers are also expensive (at least as much as the engine), harder to obtain and create a need for a real tank, which adds to the complexity of building and operating the model. How about a 5 -10 second penalty for every second of over run? We could even have dual rules where timers are allowed, but over runs are not if a timer is used.
In general, I would like someone to be able to see a plan in a model mag, buy the wood and engine at a hobby shop, and show up at a local contest. There might of course be no one who ever does this, but it shoud be possible. I have a photo of Jason Poti with an ultra simple 1/2 A model that was partial insperation for this event. Even though Norm is his father, any father and son could cobble that model together with a baby bee and eye dropper on the front
Thanks again
Ross (7-12-99)
**************
Joe,
Sorry, I don't know the Pee Wee fly-off rules. I flew the event once maybe 5 years ago. I have a nifty Pee Wee model with 180 sq. wing thats never been flown, unfortunately too busy with rubber.
I see your point about strategy but Pee Wee fliers can do the same re over runs. Besides if someone can do a calculated over run then it could only be the last flight and no one else could be maxed out. Incrimental increases will make the math more difficult, how about 20 seconds per second of over run? Two extra seconds would really hurt a score, four seconds could make any flight an attempt.
It is the NFFS photo of Poti that I have. I did not know that the model was without a timer though. He used an eye dropper? Seven seconds is very tough without a timer.
I am enjoying this debate toward the formation of this new event. Of course the event needs a name too. The name Baby Bee 40 is good because it links it to the pee wee 30 event which is its little brother. Others may want a different name though. Any name is better than Slop!
Ross (7-12-99)
more discussions (Murphy, Jahnke):
Jerry Murphy
FFBC Member Dist IX
The discussion of yet another beginner event makes me wonder why we need another event in the days of slow open power, AMA gas, and nostalgia. I believe the answer is none of these are simple enough for a raw beginner. There is nothing like P-30 for the gas minded flier.
With this out of the way
let me say that simply adding an event to the rule book and then letting the
rule change process make it work is a bad idea. The world is a better place
if a club adopts the event and flys it for several years. This will give the
event time to age and the problems can be found. Issues such as the glow plugs
that Doug has identified can be worked out. Ideas such as target time have
not worked in the past and I suggest that it not be tried again. Adding a
timer to a Baby Bee is a simple task that can be accomplished by anybody with
a screwdriver and 1/8 inch drill bit. (Anybody who has attempted to use an
eye dropper tank can tell you that it is a bad idea at best.) If the goal
of this event is for it to be a training ground for new fliers, lets give
them the same procedures as the big boys. Persons flying this event will then
be facing the same limitations as other event fliers with engine run restrictions
that
can be changed to meet the filed and weather conditions.
A selection of kits would also help the development of this event. Campbell's Super 30 and PP's One Night 28 have played a key part in the development of the P-30 class. If the free flight community is serious about making this event popular it might need to fund the development of at least two kits by leading suppliers.
So, in closing I say go fly it for a few years, let the event grow and then when it is ready, put it in the rule book. This is exactly how P-30 and Pnut scale developed.
Jerry Murphy (7-13-99)
********
Jerry Murphy expressed some legitimate concerns about introducing new events. It was in this forum that I spoke out against Slop for similar reasons. The reason that I am floating this new gas event is not to better serve the desires of existing gas modelers, but to introduce new people to gas free flight. The choice of engine and fuel system is the key to this distinction. Slop is designed as an outlet for current gas fliers who wish to avoid the technology race (though when you see the 1999 Sympo you might get a shock!). A Baby Bee event is designed for the non-gas modeler, either a person new to the sport or one who flies rubber or glider.
The difference is that the engine is extremely common, there is one at every flea market and hobby shop in the country. The performance of the model is moderate so that some experience with rubber models is enough to successfully trim. Simplicity of the engine / shut off / tank system makes it a non issue for those without much engine experience.
Joe Mekina and I have exchanged e-mails on the topic and particularly the timer vs.. dropper system. He noted that Jason Poti, Norm's son, flew 1/2 A with a very simple model equipped with a dropper tank instead of a timer and had trouble with the seven second engine runs (and more trouble with 5 and 4 sec. fly-offs). I have timers on all of my rubber models, including P-30 because I dislike fuses so much. In the case of the baby bee event I simply wanted to eliminate the cost and complexity associated with the addition of a timer and a remote tank or bladder. Joe and I even discussed allowing a choice between timers with no provision for over run and droppers with a penalty for every second of over run.
The need for a kit or two is also clear. Like the One Night 28 which was around before P-30, existing 1/2A kits will fit this new event. It might only be necessary to publish a list of kits and a diagram illustrating the necessary mods to an engine and firewall.
Ultimately I Seek enough input from experienced modelers to create an event to try next year. Jerry is right, it needs to be hashed out on the flying field before it hits the books. Unfortunately most of us can spend a few minutes at the computer more easily than we can build and fly a new model.
Ross Jahnke (7-13-99)
variation of weight and wingspan (Lee Campbell):
Lee Campbell and I talked, he initially thought 40 inches was to small, but later agreed to it if one of our objectives was to not mold an event where all contestants would max out (over performing models). After we got going down that line of discussion we both agreed that perhaps the initial 200 grams was a bit light too, so we agreed (without the benefits of trying it as someone should) that 250 grams might be a bit better to help keep the event from always being one that the fliers max out because of the performance level of the models. Lee also told me that it would be possible to identify the single port cylinders with an external number stamped on them. He is going to look up what would be valid numbers for single ports.
Joe Mekina and Lee Campbell ( 7-15-99)
eyedropper fuel systems vs. timers (Mekina, Campbell)
Lee Campbell and I again talked, he understood my concerns about wanting to use timers because it made running the engines easier. But he also made some valid points about their cost and availability at times. He suggested we consider using a 12 sec engine run for timered models (with no over runs permitted) and 15 sec for eyedroppers with the penalties for over running 15. Good idea, but splits the event! We really need to get some experience under out belts and find out just how well these babe bee's run on an eyedropper!
Joe Mekina and Lee Campbell (7-16-99)
using a stock Cox 6-3 propeller (Mekina)
I just thought of this (using a standard Cox 63, hard gray plastic or flexible black nylon) as as a way to tame the engine and making it run more evenly for all contestants. Any thoughts?
more discussions (Jahnke, Mekina):
It looks like I'm the beginners corner this month.
I think keeping the prop standard will help only slightly, by eliminating exotic props, but thats O.K. I'm not sure about 250 grams but thats only because I don't fly gas events.
Ultimately you are right when you say its time to build and fly some of these birds. Does a postal contest seem in order?
Ross (7-20-99)
***********
Lee Campbell and I felt that 200 grams was a bit light, (around 7 ounces) as one of the keys to Jason Poti's successful plane was it's lightweight. We felt that at 200 grams there would be lots of people maxing out. I guess we never really discussed it but I personally don't think we should structure the rules such that we have planes capable of maxing routinely without air. This would put us into the "we are all in the flyoff situation" where the winner would be decided. I'm not sure about everybody else, but I don't think we should go that way.
A Postal is a good idea, perhaps this fall?
Joe (7-20-99)
Please, send your comments to the address below, I'll filter them into this discussion as appropriate!
And someone, please go out and build one of these things so we can get some idea of there flight characteristics!
