On Feb 14, 2012, at 9:14 AM, Bob Clemens 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 - 12:17:34 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET