[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Thu Mar 15 14:13:09 AKDT 2012
Mark,
On point one I certainly agree with you. Jeff Carder's Lightning is a
case in point. It does take skill and attention to detail and a lot of
time to produce one of Jeff's masterpieces.
On point two, I'd like to take it a bit further. First of all, there are
plenty of airframes that will take a contra or other somewhat heavy
innovative device without breaking the weight barrier of 5000 grams
using calibrated equipment. The contra system weighs 800 grams with CF
props and a Neu, according to Brenner. A Hacker Q80, with a plastic
spinner and an APC prop is about 840. My Wind S is about 3700 grams with
the Q80 combination and I am confident I could build one with a contra
and make weight without much difficulty. There are plenty of other
airframes that would accomplish the same goal and even more easily make
weight.
Again the problem occurs for those with limited resources. If you have
an airframe that is just making weight with light accessories(read
expensive) such as gear, spinners, props and wing tubes, you will have
trouble making weight if you convert to a contra and will need to go to
a lighter airframe. This is similar to the Adv/Int pilot who wants to
convert a well-used Integral to electric using cheaper components. He
will not make weight and is very unlikely to meet the 115 allowance either.
This seems to put us in an area where we can all make weight but some
will not be able to afford it and other will resent having to spend the
bucks. It is very easy to convert many dollars into missing grams but
why? Those at the top of the class will find a way to get the light
stuff to campaign at a weight well under the weight limit while the
rest of us pay dearly or ignore the weight rule and stay away from the Nats.
The perceived requirement has always been a problem. I believe we
already have a perceived requirement problem as it relates to two meter
airplanes. The beginning classes appear to have the idea that it takes
two meters to compete. They are just looking for a magic bullet to
bypass the endless practice sessions. They would be so much better off
with an Osiris' or a Wind 110 or a used Focus and just fly until the
wings fall off.
The Contra may be on its way to that perception as well, weight increase
or no increase. This kind of stuff has more to do with looking for
shortcuts and is pervasive within our society these days. Clearly there
may come a day when your equipment is holding you back but for most of
us it is over the horizon.
I can only repeat what I said before about the weight proposal of the
NSRCA. There will be no sea change if we increase the weight limit. FAI
rules the roost there. If we can help those at the bottom of the classes
without wreaking havoc at the top, we should do it. I'm sorry but I just
don't see a weight increase, at the AMA level, having any effect except
to make more flyers legal with less expense and less effort.
Thanks for listening
John
On 3/15/2012 10:25 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
> Hey John,
>
> Two quick points. A) don't disagree at all that we're in a Buy rather
> than Build market. My point was simply to counter Jim's statement
> that "only those with access to expensive tooling and equipment to
> produce composite models can build an electric powered airplane to
> meet the weight requirements" That part just wasn't true.
>
> Point 2 is to consider something as simple at the Contra Engine set
> up. Not a aircraft design change, but something that requires a good
> deal of effort to get in under weight today. Up-ing the weight limit
> could make something like that (or some other major change) a
> perceived requirement (I say perceived in the same way the flying a
> 40% aircraft is perceived to be required to be competitive in IMAC)
> and that CLEARLY ups the cost to compete by a LOT. That's just one
> known example (that may or may not catch on regardless of weight).
> But the issue is simply that if you give the top competitors in
> Masters room to work with that they don't have now, they'll figure out
> a way to take advantage of it. They have either the skill or the
> means to make weight today. They are the ones that will..and
> are...pushing the envelope. Not the guy in Advanced that is trying to
> fly with a used aircraft and wants to use inexpensive heavy batteries.
> Thus the additional weight tolerance that was approved last year.
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Mark
> *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 15, 2012, at 1:07 AM, John Gayer wrote:
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120315/802fc2cd/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list