[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
Mark Hunt
flyintexan at att.net
Fri Mar 16 07:15:53 AKDT 2012
I keep sensing evidence that a lower weight limit in lower classes would actually decrease cost and therby increase participation.....oh well.
________________________________
From: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2012 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
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 | 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 | 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
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
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/20120316/69d39176/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list