Hi Pete,<br> I don't know about the World's but the 115g allowance was valid 2011-2012 and actually passed in 2010.<br><br>Scott<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Pete Cosky <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:pcosky@comcast.net">pcosky@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="font-size:14px;font-family:Calibri,sans-serif;word-wrap:break-word"><div><"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%."></div>
<div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><span><div style="border-right:medium none;padding-right:0in;padding-left:0in;padding-top:3pt;text-align:left;font-size:11pt;border-bottom:medium none;font-family:Calibri;border-top:#b5c4df 1pt solid;padding-bottom:0in;border-left:medium none">
<span style="font-weight:bold">From: </span> John Gayer <<a href="mailto:jgghome@comcast.net" target="_blank">jgghome@comcast.net</a>><br><span style="font-weight:bold">Reply-To: </span> General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Date: </span> Wed, 14 Mar 2012 23:07:30 -0600<br><span style="font-weight:bold">To: </span> General pattern discussion <<a href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>><br>
<span style="font-weight:bold">Subject: </span> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals<br></div><div><br></div><div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Mark,<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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%.<br> <br>
Cheers<br>
John(another grumpy old man)<br>
maybe because we don't build enough anymore?<br>
or still have ambroid and dope withdrawals?<br>
<br>
On 3/14/2012 6:35 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">Hey Jim,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The issue is somewhat the opposite of what you present.
People don't WANT to build, they want to BUY. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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. <br>
<div>
<span style="text-indent:0px;letter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-align:auto;font-style:normal;font-weight:normal;line-height:normal;border-collapse:separate;text-transform:none;font-size:medium;white-space:normal;font-family:Helvetica;word-spacing:0px">
<div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Mark Atwood</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Paragon Consulting, Inc.</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> </span><b><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">|</span></b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> President</span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">5885 Landerbrook Drive
Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124</span><span style="font-size:10.5pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">Phone: <a href="tel:440.684.3101%20x102" value="+14406843101" target="_blank">440.684.3101 x102</a> </span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">|</span></b><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> Fax: <a href="tel:440.684.3102" value="+14406843102" target="_blank">440.684.3102</a></span><span style="font-size:11pt;color:rgb(31,73,125);font-family:Calibri,sans-serif"><u></u><u></u></span></div>
<div style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0.0001pt;margin-left:0in;font-size:12pt;font-family:'Times New Roman',serif"><span style="font-size:8.5pt;color:rgb(19,81,243);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><a href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a> </span><b><span style="font-size:9pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif">|</span></b><span style="font-size:8.5pt;font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> </span><span style="font-size:8.5pt;color:rgb(19,81,243);font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"><a href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/" style="color:blue;text-decoration:underline" target="_blank">www.paragon-inc.com</a></span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span><br>
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:42 AM, James Oddino wrote:</div>
<br>
<div style="word-wrap:break-word">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?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jim </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:13 PM, John Gayer wrote:</div>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> 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:
<blockquote type="cite">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).
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>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...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think a lot of the weight argument relates
to a lack of clarity about what we were solving
for with that proposal:</div>
<div> 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.</div>
<div> 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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>'Nuff said.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</div></div>
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org" target="_blank">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></span></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<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" target="_blank">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><b style="color:rgb(51,51,255)"><font style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif" size="4">Scott A. McHarg</font></b><br>
<br>