[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
John Gayer
jgghome at comcast.net
Fri Mar 16 15:53:51 AKDT 2012
Pete,
Certainly expect the World's had an impact on the Nats attendance in
2011. I was trying to point out that Intermediate and Advanced had
larger percentage increases than Masters and F3A. I suggested that
perhaps the 115 gram weight allowance in effect might have had a
difference. Guess we'll find out this year although the gas price
increases I keep hearing about for this summer may have a serious
dampening effect on attendance. I hope not.
John
On 3/15/2012 11:20 AM, Pete Cosky 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 <mailto:jgghome at comcast.net>>
> Reply-To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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 <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.orghttp://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/20120316/03e4884b/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list