[NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?

Mon Jun 19 14:08:11 AKDT 2006

Just NE RD Matt. 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: rcmaster199 at aol.com 
  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
  Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 5:15 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?

  Ed speaks not only with the experience of having flown the large beasties for a bunch of years but also from being the President and Regional Director of IMAC for several years (Ed, I think that's true or correct if not). I believe it means he has seen the GOOD the BAD and the UGLY. 

  We're not talking about the top 20% that fly these models but the other 80% that frankly scare the hell out of me too. 

  MattK

  -----Original Message-----
  From: Ed Alt <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
  To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
  Sent: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:16:09 -0400
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Sportsman supplemental rules?

  I checked the SA rules and there does not seem to be anything to explicitely require the pilot to take off or land.  Whatever.  

  Re. the fragility of large gas planes, I have three words.  Build a Carden. There's Navy jets that don't hold up as well.  

  Anyway, whatever IMAC is doing is not much of a guidepost for Pattern IMO.  They have set a direction that may be loads of fun for amature pilots, but at some point, those aero-whiz-kids have to take off and land for real.  It's flight training 101 and until you can do that with competence, you shouldn't be handling something that can cut you in half.  Ther's a local guy here in NJ, probably not competing in anything, but he has his 3 year old son flying 3D crap with no buddy box.  Flail, flail, duck for cover, crash, do it again until Dad's checkbook is empty.  Yeah, that's a direction I want to see continue.

  Honestly, I don't see the slightest connection between making Pattern more popular and dumbing down TO/landings.  Keep in mind, Pattern is growing in D1, IMAC is shrinking in the same area.  The guys that are left are BEGGING for use of flying fields because they have lost the use of several already. Combination of noise, overflight of houses, liability concerns of former host clubs after serious injury at a contest etc. The sequences, rules and established "BKMs"  (yeah, right) continue to result in very large flight footprints. The airplanes are noisy, rules notwithstanding.  Sorry, but I see nothing to emulate here except for learning about doing a good marketing hype job and getting more kits and decent ARCS/ARFS available.  We are doing 4 primers in D1 this year and they're working.  Back to basics - develop real skills, don't promote gimmicks.  Sorry if this sounds harsh, but I left IMAC competition for a reason and I really don't want to see that type of thinking pervade what I consider to be the more pure form of precision aerobatics.

  Ed
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: Jim Woodward 
    To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
    Sent: Monday, June 19, 2006 3:33 PM
    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

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Check out AOL.com today. Breaking news, video search, pictures, email and IM. All on demand. Always Free.

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

  _______________________________________________
  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/20060619/74be0133/attachment.html 