[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Pete Cosky pcosky at comcast.net
Thu Mar 15 08:56:55 AKDT 2012


I knew a few guys said they were going to the see the Final at WC and just
stay and fly at the NATS.

Scott ­ You're right it wall Fall of '10 now that I think about it. 2011
went by fast.

From:  Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
Reply-To:  General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date:  Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:37:13 -0700
To:  General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject:  Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Actually I think the increased NATS attendance was due to the WCs being on
the front-end...

On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:20 AM, 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
>> <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.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca
>> -discussion
>>  
>  
> _______________________________________________ NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20120315/55b1c66a/attachment.html>


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list