Re: Bostonians and No-Cals

From: Bob Clemens <rclemens2_at_rochester.rr.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2012 11:48:39 -0400

OK, so a No-Cal length limit alone would not solve the dilemma of this event. How about combining a length limit with a maximum wing cord limit? This event was never intended to be one where a specific subjects such as the Hosler Fury or stubby-winged raceplanes would be almost a requirement for winning. As for decreasing the minimum weight, that too will limit interest to only those indoor endurance fliers who can build successful ultralight models. And there are not a lot of these modelers around. Despite claims to the contrary, we can’t all do it. IMO No-Cal was never intended as an exercise in precision surgery. Maybe the event should simply be dropped from indoor competition. As for grossly fudging outlines, that’s a disgrace. I saw a Lacy No-Cal built by a well-known indoor flier, now deceased, allowed to fly at West Baden years ago sporting a motor stick that protruded three or four inches beyond the model’s nose! Ridiculous!

I totally agree with Don DeLoach when he said:

“You think tissue covered No-Cals with no minimum weight make *sense*?

This is a good example of why most Free Flighters are not attracted to
indoor.”

It’s interesting to see that little feedback has appeared regarding my Bostonian comments. Perhaps that once-interesting event will fade away just as No-Cal appears to be doing. That would be a shame. What the heck is wrong with increasing the weight minimum? Or requiring a vertical rectangle for the fuselage cross section? I get the impression no one really cares. Perhaps we could agree to re-name it the Dinosaur event, then drop it too.

Bob Clemens
Received on Sat Jun 09 2012 - 08:49:01 CEST