[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Scott McHarg]

Hi Pete,
   I don't know about the World's but the 115g allowance was valid
2011-2012 and actually passed in 2010.

Scott

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Pete Cosky <pcosky at comcast.net> wrote:

> <"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%.">
>
> John I may be wrong, but my addled brain thinks the 115gr increase was
> passed last year and took effect in 2012. If I were going to hazard a guess
> I would say the increased NATS participation last year might have had
> something to do with the Worlds being here.
>
> From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:07:30 -0600
> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>
>  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  *|*  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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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
>



-- 
*Scott A. McHarg*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120315/c964cc97/attachment.html>