[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?

Mon Jun 19 12:32:40 AKDT 2006

As a relative newcomer to competition I have to agree with Gray. I think take off and landing should be judged and if you are good enough to compete you should be good enough to take off and land.

At the clubs I've belonged to you were not allowed to fly without an instructor present and within arms reach until you proved your ability to takeoff, fly the pattern and few different maneuvers (various depending on the club) and land your plane. If you botched it you did not fly solo out of safety concerns for those around you. 

I think its great that a father and son can go out to a meet and compete together but why not spend a little time teaching him how to take off and land as well? Is it for fear of breaking an expensive toy? I've seen enough damage from 40 size trainers visited on people. I shudder to think what a big gasser would do.

I do have to ask one question:
How did the pilot get so comfortable flying in the wind if they didn't take off and land in it?
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gray E Fowler 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 4:05
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?

  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 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  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/20060619/40f20851/attachment.html 