[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Wed Mar 14 21:08:01 AKDT 2012
Mark,
I agree that the BEST way to have a light airplane is build your own but
it not the easiest. Those of us who competed back in the dark ages know
how to build and finish a balsa builtup or balsa/foam wing and work
with a raw fiberglass fuse.
We now have a lot of participants who not only do not have a clue about
building a wing or finishing a raw epoxyglass fuse, they are even
reluctant to assemble one of the current breed of ARFs. If they tear out
the gear, they need help getting back in the air. Options are more
limited for these folks and they do not all have unlimited resources.
They are part of our pattern community and are some of our more avid
pattern competitors. They have a lot of respect for those who can build
but they are not willing to put in the hours through the years we spent
acquiring those skills.
While there are many, myself included, who could build pattern planes
today we choose instead to buy. This is often a time vs money decision
where my time is more valuable to me than the dollars I send to the
Chinese. For others, it is not a choice- buying is a necessity. If you
don't know how to build light and straight, you certainly do not know
how to repair light either. It is this part of our pattern community
that I would like to help with an increase in the AMA only weight limit.
If you like, it is those just starting out and those that are
financially challenged that need help with a weight allowance, not you
and me. And those are the flyers we need to help if we are to have any
chance to make pattern grow.
It seems very clear that the world-wide pattern airframe industry is
driven by the FAI weight and size limit. That we here in the US increase
our weight limit, as other countries have, will not impact the designs
and airframes commonly available at a reasonable cost. Who is going to
design a heavy airframe and expect to sell it? 50cc biplanes? go ahead
and build your labor of love that has no market. If I practice every
hour you spend designing, building, modifying and testing such a beast,
I will be way ahead. There is no magic bullet in any airframe much less
a heavy one regardless of power plant. There are many planes that will
execute a wonderful pattern if straight, light and properly trimmed.
That is a fact of life and not a rule.
Being able to have the freedom to raise our weight limit is only made
possible by the FAI specifications of a pattern model. If the FAI, in
its infinite wisdom, were to raise either the size or the weight I will
be right there helping to fight it as that change would bring on all the
airframe change and added expense that many are concerned about.
As a point of interest, the Intermediate and Advanced class attendance
at the 2011 Nats increased by about 50%. Was this caused by the 115 gram
allowance for those classes? I don't know but I very much doubt it hurt.
for comparison, Masters was up 34% and F3A 21%.
Cheers
John(another grumpy old man)
maybe because we don't build enough anymore?
or still have ambroid and dope withdrawals?
On 3/14/2012 6:35 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> 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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org <mailto: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/20120315/04412303/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list