Drag props should be interchangeable with running props. Whatever the angle on the drive prop needs to be on the drag prop. So you can still take your metal disk, just make the blades the same diameter and pitch. Dremmel for the win!
Ok, that is plausible, but a nightmare for a CD to check. A disk diameter is so much easier to check with a ruler than the angle on a prop. We've always had disks, they work, lets just put them in the rules and be done with it.
Why not just require captain to submit documentation for review prior to battles (yay paperwork)! In this day and age, email is simple and make your case before you even show up. Look at the guys that show their builds on this site, they have nothing to hide.
I'm a cheap bastard and I don't really want to buy an additional set of props that match my drive props, esp if I decide to experiment with different main props. Doubles up the cost.
That is why I said use the disk and cut it to shape with the MK1 eyeball on pitch. And before it is brought up, some ships used different outboard props
In support of those not wanting to buy more props, those who have two shafts only, and even reducing performance to make the hobby less intimidating... I would be willing to lose all drag devices/disks/props. Drag devices increase performance in a way that veterans can utilize better than a rookie. Recruitment has value in this discussion. In some ways treaty combat is built around this concept. I feel the hobby would benefit as a whole. The only real cost is the moderate extra labor on the mag throttle folks. Who have probably been around long enough to know how to deal with it effectively.
Why not just make them? The ones you get from BC or strike are hand made (unless that has changed). You can make one and cast copies. You can make one out of plastic. You can make one out of metal. You can get the point. Doesn't need to be expensive. We can even do a "how to". I am sure the the providers can also start selling copies as well if the change is made. If you pick a ship with 2 shafts, why are you expecting to get drag devices?
My personal sentiment is that we have too much turning and too much thrust, but I do not think that's a widely shared or widely supported sentiment, and struggle to see such a proposal having the votes to pass.
BC sells a cast drag prop. One size only, http://battlersconnection.com/drag-prop/ I print mine https://rcwarshipcombat.com/resources/37mm-od-drag-props.56/
We've always had drag disks, and in my opinion, always will. The rule just needs a slight revision so it says what we've been doing all along. Banning drag disks wouldn't be a popular decision because once somebody has something they're less likely to let go of it. Some sane, fair regulation is all that is needed. IMHO
Drag devices have been around as long as you have, true. However, they did come around at some point. Just like rudder area changes, many many years before my time. Removal doesn't cost much. Just a willingness to be open minded.
The opened mindness part might be lacking, but there's no way of knowing unless you write up a rule proposal and see haw the club votes on it.
I can see it now, Steve calls 'five out of control' then leans over and whispers, "My drag chute is wrapped around my prop."
Before I dared write up a rule proposal. I would have to attend Nats, talk to everyone, and try to destroy my own argument. Our opposition are the ones who can help us toughen a proposal. I would want my finger on the pulse of what everyone is doing and thinking in the club. I would also want to be there myself to champion it. Many people are open minded for sure. However, regardless of how mentally flexible they are they will often balk at things (they would support) that cost them a lot of money or time. The current rule set isn't costing them anything. No one wants to penalize themselves. In the meantime I am perfectly willing to try to inspire thought on subjects that will spur people (who will be more participatory) to action!
I measured my plans, and the top of the armour belt is at 5/8 inch, and the new BC hull is also 5/8 inch, which I measured. With the allowable error, my armour belt was no more than 1/8 inch off. I will tell the fellow that purchased it to grind down the top of the belt 1/8 inch, and add to the bottom as needed, will not be that hard to do, and it will meet the rules. It will have even less penetrable space, since a BB will not go through a 1/8 hole since the BB is larger. That should make him happy. I did not say it was scale, I said it has the same amount of penetrable area, same as I said at Nats. If you move a 1/8 inch armour belt up or down, it does not change. What the issue at Nats was cutting the hull down, Rob, Carl, and Tom. In fact Tom brought his boat over and laid it next to mine, and said no way, it should be much taller. Yet if you check both boat spec's, you will find they are only about a 1/8 inch of difference, about what we saw. So please tell me whats legal about this? You removed well over 1/8 inch from what I can see? The rules specifically say the skegs must be in place right? Rule C.3. 3. Hull shape shall be relatively to scale. Running gear (such as skegs and bilge keels) shall be relatively scale and in the correct scale location. Does that mean we can cut them off if we don't like them? So my boat being 1/8 inch out of scale is a big issue, how is this not? Before After Whoever does this is wrong by the rules, nowhere scale shape, but has been allowed. And nothing is said. But is it right?
