[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?

[Gray E Fowler]

Jim

I am IMAC ignorant, but for RC  in general where we all started, it 
appears to me that IMAC has a basic flaw in their competition approach. 
Good enough to compete (gotta have the big ole plane right?) but not good 
enough to land. 

I am not speaking as a pattern dude, just as an RCer. As matter of fact, 
in my AMA club we actually have a rule that NO large scale plane/pilot can 
fly without passing qualifications set by other designated large scale 
club members. Last time I looked landing was one of the qualifications.

Am I nuts or is "I can waterfall but I cannot land" just crazy?

I would reccomend just switchin to a P-51 trainer.



Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radome and Composites Engineering
Raytheon



"Jim Woodward" <jim.woodward at schroth.com> 
Sent by: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
06/19/2006 02:33 PM
Please respond to
NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>


To
"'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
cc

Subject
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?






Gray,
 
Your words below were my reaction before flying IMAC.  My gut feeling 
hasn’t changed about it, but on the other hand, the IMAC equipment and 
competitors are different and I believe would have the following take 
(IMAC folks correct me if I’m off base): 
1.      Allowing others to land the plane encourages fathers to bring 
their younger sons to the contest and let them compete.  There is a higher 
amount of kids (young kids) flying IMAC than pattern.  However, there is 
also a larger kid-factor present when the final placing is announced. Kids 
typically score well in IMAC, and place high too.
2.      Knocking out the gear in an IMAC plane is very real possibility 
any time you land.  One second of misjudged airspeed or decent, and the 
gear is coming out with damage to the fuse.  Not to mention potentially 
ruining a $130+ CF prop.
3.      Repairing the plane is not in line with the “have-fun” focus of a 
lot of the competitors.  So a rule is in place that in many minds must 
allow for increased participation, less damage to expensive equipment, 
less ego damage too.  It takes several people to cart off an IMAC plane 
once the gear is out. 
4.      $$$ A lot of folks are flying planes 2 – 4 times more expensive 
than a pattern plane.  There is more overall concern related to equipment 
health.  Planes are twice as big, but 5 times easier to damage on landing 
than a pattern plane. 
5.      Note:  A lot of the pattern landings I’ve seen would definitely 
(seriously) damage an IMAC plane.   But the pattern pilot can bounce 3-5 
times and it like nothing happened to the plane (lucky for us). 
 
Again, I’m all for scoring landings in pattern.  It sounds like from Ed’s 
post there is a class limit in IMAC for which classes allow alternate 
lander(s).  I’m just offering a different perspective from the IMAC 
experience this year.
 
Jim W.
 
 

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Gray E 
Fowler
Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:11 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?
 

Wow!  I find it hard to believe that someone would own and fly a plane 
that they in essence cannot land.  That is a beginners mistake and I see 
it alot at my club, and we call it  "Too much plane for the pilot". 
Usually this happens with a persons second airplane of his RC career, not 
someone at a competition. We all bung a landing now and then ( as if 
evident for the constant need of replacement chin cowls) , but I have to 
seriously question that if at a contest a pilot cannot land a plane they 
brought, should it be allowed?  If it is too much plane for the pilot, the 
pilot need to step down his plane or learn to land it in PRACTICE, before 
his thumbs are shakin' at a contest. 

I will once again cast another vote to score T/O and Landings knowing the 
odds are in my favor that "others" will not a second time sneek around the 
majority to enact personal agendas-but thats a differnet topic...... 

When flying RC planes of ANY type there are only two required 
manuevers...T/O and then Landing. 



Gray Fowler
Senior Principal Chemical Engineer
Radome and Composites Engineering
Raytheon_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060619/9d461c69/attachment.html