[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
Jay Marshall
lightfoot at sc.rr.com
Fri Mar 16 11:27:31 AKDT 2012
I suggest we think about adopting a class and rules similar to SPA but with
no restriction on airframes - leave room for innovation.
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Hunt
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 11:16 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
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
<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 | 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.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/e13fe30e/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list