[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Wed Mar 14 06:27:46 AKDT 2012

Mark was always a grumpy young man so the only real change is an increased
level of competence through experience..

Verne

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Ronald Van
Putte
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:56 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

I hate to say this, but, by his actions recently, Atwood already qualifies
as a grumpy old man.

Ron

On Mar 14, 2012, at 7:44 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:

DEAL!!!      I'll bet if we get Ron a beer (or 3) he might be willing to
mentor us on how to be effective grumpy old men!

Mark Atwood

Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President

5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102

mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 

On Mar 14, 2012, at 8:40 AM, Michael S. Harrison wrote:

Happy Birthday, you old fart!!! buy you a beer at the nats!!

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:35 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Hey Jim,

Not to be confrontational but some of that is simply not true.  The EASIEST
way to make weight right now is building your own with traditional materials
and techniques.  A simple built up balsa wing will save more than half a
POUND (10oz) over a composite wing.  A balsa/foam wing is slightly heavier
but still saves a full 8oz.     We've been building fiberglass Fuses since
well before I started in this in the late 80's and the only change to the
fuselages is layering some carbon in to stiffen the nose and gear area.
Nothing magical there.

The issue is somewhat the opposite of what you present.  People don't WANT
to build, they want to BUY.   

But even that is no longer a real issue.  Are there some heavy planes?
Sure.  But a lot of the current planes on the market today make weight
without issue for electric and anything glow seems to not be part of the
discussion even though those aircraft are perfectly viable.  

Bottom line is that weight is a constraining factor.  BY DESIGN.  Without
the constraint, designs and equipment WILL change, and that change will cost
money and that will eventually be passed on to everyone.   

Mark Atwood

Paragon Consulting, Inc.  |  President

5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124 

Phone: 440.684.3101 x102  |  Fax: 440.684.3102

mark.atwood at paragon-inc.com  |  www.paragon-inc.com
<http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 

On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:42 AM, James Oddino wrote:

I have not read all the comments regarding weight increase proposals but
Michael Harrison articulated the best reason to increase the weight limit in
some private emails we shared not long ago.  Excuse me if this has been
covered in this thread.  In the old days all the top pilots designed and
built their own airplanes.  Now only those with access to expensive tooling
and equipment to produce composite models can build an electric powered
airplane to meet the weight requirements.  The current, arbitrary limit
stifles development.  Throw out the weight limit.  What purpose does it
serve?

Also I seem to remember that in the late 60s and early 70s the FAI
requirement was specified in terms of wing loading (Kg/Dm) and the area
included the wing and the stab.  And I believe the requirement was a minimum
meaning that heavier was okay.  RVP, is Ron Chidgey still around?  He could
probably tell us the straight scoop.  I'm too old to remember the details.

Jim 

On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:13 PM, John Gayer wrote:

Peter,
On behalf of the rules committee I would like to thank you for your many
well-reasoned, thoughtful  and thought-provoking posts. The one below goes
far beyond the current rules cycle and addresses areas that are key to the
future of pattern and the NSRCA. I would like to hear more ideas about the
direction we should take, both from you and from others on this list. 
John Gayer
NSRCA Treasurer
Rules Committee member

On 3/13/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:

Taking a lesson from our former CEO (Steve Bennett, protege of Jack Welch)
-- whenever there's a heated argument about a proposal, it is very rarely
the proposal itself that is the source of the argument, rather, what people
are disagreeing about is WHAT they are solving for (the "big Y") and the
dozen or so variables their perspective believes influence the Y (the little
X's) -- if you can agree on the big Y before you even start talking about
the little X's you think will move the lever and then share your knowledge
that leads to the things you think will move the needle and everyone else
does the same, then there is rarely argument and you will reach a shared
understanding of the tactics and strategy that will move you forward.   And,
of course, all the Big Y's are in pursuit of "True North" which is what the
organization as a whole exists to achieve (in the case of a company, it can
be as simple as "maximum return for shareholders" in the case of the company
I work for it's Best-in-class results for all three stakeholders
(shareholders, customers, employees).  

So, let's start with the NSRCA itself, why do we exist, and what are we
solving for?  I think I heard someone say "to support US participation in
international competition" -- I'll go with that one for a moment...

Last I checked, FAI-level performance doesn't reside latent in the fetus
waiting to be activated when a child first touches the sticks on a
transmitter and delivers a phenom-level performance.  It might happen, but I
believe even Andrew Jesky spent over a decade in pursuit of the goal of
winning the precision competition at Tucson and similarly in pursuit of a
slot on the US world F3A team...  In short, talent is developed -- that
means brought up through progressive levels of competition where a decent
showing is possible for the person's current skill level, or at least that
they feel they are making progress toward a successful showing.  If taking
home wood isn't a least a back-of-the-mind goal in the lower levels, that's
a rare circumstance (I admit, for me the starting goal was to not get all
zeroes and to improve my overall flying -- but I've been bitten by the
competitive bug and now I *want* to do well, though I recognize I'm still
probably years away from being near the top of the podium in sportsman given
limitations on the amount of practice I can fit into my life).  

So, proposed Big Y number 1 -- Promote and Support classes that allow talent
to be identified and developed to ultimately lead to success in FAI. --
Probably needs some word smithing, but I think it adequately explains why
401, etc. exist.  In any well-formed development program, you want to see a
strong funnel of "newbies" coming in to the bottom classes while people
"leak" in the boundaries between classes for various reasons (hitting a
talent plateau, discovering the opposite sex, lack of funds, other
commitments more important, lack/loss of practice facilities, etc.)  Some
leakage is organic and unavoidable, other leakage is manageable, some is
reversable (i.e. many people come back to the hobby after the, to quote Inga
from Young Frankenstein, "Sweet Mystery of Life", is no longer shiny and
new, still fun, but not the only thing to live for).  Controlling the
controllable leakage would be one of the X's to solve for here, as would the
"development" of talent (read: training and coaching that goes beyond the
high-wing trainer) and, arguably most importantly, bringing new blood into
the lower classes.

I think a lot of the weight argument relates to a lack of clarity about what
we were solving for with that proposal:

    Some think it relates to making the lower classes more accessible -- I'm
willing to buy that, to a point, in that getting a 2m bird to make weight
can be challenging and expensive, creating a barrier to entry into the lower
classes.  (as you progress through the classes, the possibility of
sponsorships, etc. increase, making cost less of a concern -- I'll talk
about sponsorship later...)  But the argument can be made that at the lower
classes you are actually probably a lot less willing to put an expensive 2m
11lb (or 11+lb) plane at risk and so you'll "fly what you brung" which is
probably a smaller plane (47" Osiris, 48" Vanquish, 62" Osiris, Wind50,
hand-me-down Kaos, etc.) where making weight isn't even a vague concern.

    Some think it relates to aligning ourselves with the international
community -- I believe that was even one of the reasons for the change
documented in the proposal, someone did the research and found that a number
of other countries' development classes allow for 5500 grams (which is only
a 10% variance from the FAI standard) and, I believe, there was/is some
evidence for higher development class participation in those countries than
in the US.  We all know correlation is not causation, so whether the
increased weight limit is the reason for the higher participation or whether
there are other environmental factors (i.e. BMFA's 'B' and 'C' certificate
training programs that take people beyond flying a circuit with a high wing
trainer) is obviously debatable.

When I voted yes on the weight issue I did so in full knowledge that we
already have a 115g allowance in Intermediate and Advanced as well as a "fly
what you brung" convention in sportsman.  My thinking was that in today's
global community, people move from country to country a lot (as director of
training at my local field I recently signed off two recent european
transplants to fly solo at our field, my brother and his family have lived
in Indonesia and the UK for most of my nephew's lives, having only just now
returned to the states after 16 years as expats) and so we make it easier
for people who may have competed at their equivalent of Intermediate and
Advanced or Masters to compete in US competitions with the planes they moved
with them.  I saw no likely harm in the change because there's plenty of
incentive to "keep it light" to improve the flying characteristics (except
in the windiest conditions), the other restrictions regarding size, voltage,
and sound create further barriers to significant weight increase if you want
to be competitive.  So for people who, like me, read the rules carefully
before getting into competition (My AMA# was on the right wing at my first
competition, no one had to tell me I needed it) the weight will be one less
barrier to considering competition.   I also thought it would encourage a
degree of "casual" competitors for whom pattern is not the end-all-be-all of
their participation in RC but they have a self-designed bird that competes
well but isn't a classic pattern ship.  "casual" competition at the local
level is, I believe, part of what it takes to create the "critical mass"
that makes a competition viable for the club to host, and for participants
to feel that the sport isn't dying off (similar to church attendance,
there's a certain level above which growth is easier because people believe
in the viability of the church).  In short, I saw several positives and no
negatives to the change, so I voted yes.  Does it mean I'm going to go out
and campaign a 5500g plane?  No, it's not going to change what I do -- my
Vanquish makes weight easily and will continue to do so even if I have to
repair the LG 3 more times and I expect the 2M Osiris will be similar when I
get it later this summer.

I promised I'd talk about sponsorship -- this is peripheral to the weight
issue, but something the NSRCA should think about if development of talent
within pattern is truly something we believe we should be solving for -- I
know there are some sponsored pilots here in D7, but it is my impression
that they are sponsored because they rose in the ranks at a time when 3D
didn't exist and so pattern carried the "WOW" and was one of the premier
competition classes in the US.  I don't think I've ever seen, at least here
in D7, a manufacturer rep (as opposed to sponsored pilot) at a pattern
event, that says to me that pattern at the local level, at least, isn't a
"feeder" for manufacturers to find local pilots to represent their brand
well at their club field or local competitions.  Contrast that with any
local huckfest or strongly attended fun fly (which is mostly 3D stuff and
foam wing combat these days) and you'll see at least one other reason that I
think we don't draw the new blood that pattern probably once did.  I "grew
up" watching the pattern guys and their tuned pipes and fast birds (mostly
in magazines since I lived in backwater Los Alamos, NM until I was in
college in TX) and they were almost gods to me with their JR and Futaba
shirts.   Where's the sponsor talent (which includes piloting, but also
helping others with their setups, coaching, etc. talent) identification in
pattern these days?  If pattern were *visibly* supported by the
manufacturers more, I think we'd also see an influx to our branch of the
hobby.

'Nuff said.

_______________________________________________
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

_______________________________________________
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/20120314/446ead50/attachment.html>