<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Helvetica;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Verdana;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.apple-style-span
{mso-style-name:apple-style-span;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap: break-word;
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space;-webkit-line-break: after-white-space'>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>Happy Birthday, you old fart!!! buy you a beer at the nats!!<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<div>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'> nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Mark
Atwood<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:35 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> General pattern discussion<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>Hey Jim,<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The issue is somewhat the opposite of what you present.
People don't WANT to build, they want to BUY. <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.
<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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. <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Mark Atwood</span></b><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Paragon Consulting, Inc.</span></b><span style='font-size:9.0pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> President</span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite
130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124</span><span style='font-size:10.5pt;
font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:black'>Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 </span><b><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span
style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> Fax:
440.684.3102</span><span style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";
color:#1351F3'><a href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a> </span><b><span
style='font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'>|</span></b><span
style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:black'> </span><span
style='font-size:8.5pt;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";color:#1351F3'><a
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/">www.paragon-inc.com</a></span><span
style='color:black'><o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:13.5pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";
color:black'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:42 AM, James Oddino wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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?<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Jim <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:13 PM, John Gayer wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Peter,<br>
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. <br>
John Gayer<br>
NSRCA Treasurer<br>
Rules Committee member<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/13/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Vogel wrote: <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal>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). <o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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...<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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). <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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 <i>Young Frankenstein</i>, "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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I think a lot of the weight argument relates to a lack of
clarity about what we were solving for with that proposal:<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> 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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>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.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>'Nuff said.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal>_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>