You know that there already is a second EZB class with a minimum weight rule, don't you?
--- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Bob Clemens" <rclemens2@...> wrote:
>
> Kang said, rightfully:
>
> "EZB became too hard for most when models needed to weigh 0.5g or less to be competitive. The minimum weight 'equalizer' was not instituted and hence the competitors became a small group. In my opinion, adding a minimum weight requirement to a class is the single best way to level the playing field. But, anyway, that didn't happen in EZB."
>
> Speaking as one who flew his first Easy B back in early 1964 at the Madison Street armory in Chicago with Charlie Sotich and other Aeronuts (hey-where were the rest of you? ;-)), "adding a minimum weight requirement" would have kept Easy B from becoming the tiny niche event for experts that it has. Back then an 11 minute flight with a condenser paper covered Easy B would win a contest at the armory. Has anyone seriously considered a second category of Easy B with a weight rule? I doubt it. 30 minute flights with these models are fantastic, but are such long flights by a literal handful of experienced fliers with the rare skill to build and trim a model that weights less than half a gram contributing to the overall lure of indoor flying? Yes, there's limited penny plane. But should that be all, particularly if we're trying to lure newcomers into the hobby?
>
> Before stepping down from the podium, allow me to cite another quote, this one involving another indoor event- Bostonian- that has stagnated rather like Easy B and all but died on the proverbial vine (yes, I've flown this one too, starting at West Baden around 1980 when the event was in its infancy):
>
> "Intent of rule: This is an event to promote indoor flying of rubber-powered models of a size an complexity which are suitable for small buildings and limited skills. It also allows fanciful designs, for which no full-size counterpart exists, to be flown."
>
> Really? For at least the past decade or more this event has been owned by the look-alike "flying flounder" lifting body models. These models may have originally been "fanciful designs" but quickly became a fleet of boring clones. They most certainly don't look much like "realistic propeller-driven" airplanes. As for being "suitable for limited skills," please- tell me another one. The late Bob Meuser submitted several rules change proposals some years back, one to require the Bostonian fuselage to be built with the required rectangular cross section to be in the vertical position. This would have eliminated the flounders and perhaps taken the even back to the time when its models were truly fanciful and much more interesting in appearance. He also proposed a heavier weight minimum. Both proposals were shot down by the indoor contest board at the time. Perhaps ICB member Larry Coslick, if he reads this, can explain this matter further.
>
> Try rationally changing the rules of a given indoor event such as Easy B or Bostonian that is dominated by experienced fliers, some of whom sit on the ICB. Good luck. When Kang said "anyway, that (minimum weight notion) didn't happen in EZB. Hmm...
>
> In the meantime, here's to the status quo!
>
>
> Bob Clemens
> Stirring the pot in Rochester, NY
>
Received on Tue Feb 14 2012 - 10:37:09 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET