Having discussed this with many folks over the years...the "competition
creep." Entry level competition is kind of a bugaboo for a lot of us. I
really do not fly indoor more than a few times a year...and then it's flying
in awe of the Kang's, Gowen's, Romash's, kagan's, etc. I love it, but again
it's only a few times a year...I always settle for 4th or 5th depending on
there being 4 or 5 of those guys flying. It's magic to me...but it's not
that I may not just have the skills...it's more of it being a part time
thing.
I show up with my first attempts and then ask a ton of questions, but then
again...I also try to fly a LOT of other FF events throughout the year...I
am not just dedicated to Indoor. Having the Pro-Am thing is a great
idea...and again...I can't make them every time...I'm not that dedicated.
The key sentence that Kang made...it's not too late to grab this one...just
a nomenclature change.
"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."
Penny is the role model...Pennyplane and then "Unlimited Pennyplane."
Can a similar thing be done with EZB..."Unlimited B"...A6..."Unlimited 6?"
Yeah...the records would have to be retitled, but that seems like paperwork
to me.
Start, and then aspire to greatness.
Rick Pangell
Editor of "The Max-Out" Newsletter of
The Magnificent Mountain Men FF Club of Colorado
In a message dated 2/14/2012 1:17:36 P.M. Mountain Standard Time,
candjborland_at_surewest.net writes:
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 Aer onuts
(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-&nbs p;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 - 12:29:15 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:46 CET