Re: No-Cal Rules for USIC

From: jeffrey.hood <jhood_at_hmcon.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 15:31:37 -0000

> > While a lower minimum weight sounds good on the surface, I believe it
> > would
> > only make matters worse. People would just build 3-gram Hosler Furies!
>
> I agree

I agree on that also, although having built a Hosler, I for one would
be impressed enough to not complain about someone who built a 3g
Hosler that stayed together... I'm sure it is possible, but it
wouldn't be easy...

> I guess the first question is do we really need a rule change in No
-Cal ?
> From what I understand entrys were way down this year in all events.
So is a
> rule change needed in every event that has low participation? Is the
drop in
> participation a result of bad rules? One model dominence? Lack of
interest?

I can only speak for myself, and the reason that I didn't fly this
year is that I like to be competitive (doesn't always happen, but it
is a goal...) and I knew that without a Hosler it probably wasn't
going to happen, and I really didn't want to build another one...
(Plus, I really dislike weight limits... ;) )

> sure that single design dominence is a factor. The fact is I don't
know the
> reason,maybe the thing to do is to contact the guys that used to
fly the
> event and ask why they quit flying NO Cal. Might be a place to start
rather
> then starting to change rules in order to try and boost entrys .Just a
> thought. Seems we should first understand the nature of the problem
before
> trying to fix it.

Well, from Gary's posts, it would appear that at least two of us would
fly if something was changed... Would the participation go to the
"Golden Age of USIC" levels...? Probably not, but if any more
participation comes of it, it wouldn't be a bad thing, would it...???

> > A simple solution to the Hosler dilemma is to institute a maximum
wing
> > area.........

> Possible but a bear to process due to wing planforms. EZB is easy
since it's
> a chord /span relationship.If the span and chord are within limits
it's OK
> regardless of configuration.. Tapered wings ,elipitical wings etc
will all
> add to the complexity of processing.IMOH...I like simple :-)

Ditto on that one... I think that might actually make matters worse,
although I do agree that it would "solver the Hosler problem..."

Maybe it's not worth changing things... and I surely haven't been
doing this as long as everyone else, and haven't seen the days of 1g
NC, but I would -think- that taking the weight limit off -completely-
would allow more possible designs into the mix... The point about LPP
is a good one... not too much difference in the designs, and it seems
to all come down to who is the best flyer... I don't mind getting
beat (and it's good that I don't...) and for a class like LPP, which
-isn't- a model of a "real" plane, I don't mind... but I just never
liked the situation of a class that -should- allow different planes
flying around brought down to one design primarily because of a rule
put in place that -obviously- didn't accomplish it's goal... So I
consider a rule that didn't work to be one that should be abolished...

JH
Received on Wed Jun 25 2008 - 08:31:41 CEST