Re: Re: Bostonians and No-Cals
Bob,
> I don’t particularly appreciate your jumping to such an absurd
> conclusion. I mentioned dropping the event partly with tongue in cheek
> and also because it does appear that the popularity of indoor No-Cal
> is possibly waning. But I have no problem if you and the (about) ten
> other guys who can (or want to) build very light models want to keep
> on battling it out indoors.
Guess I did not understand you correctly when you said:
"Maybe the event should simply be dropped from indoor competition. "
I took that to mean that you feel Nocal should be dropped from indoor
competition. Seems like a rational conclusion from the statement you
posted. I have no clue if your being serious or not in your suggestion.
Perhaps an emoticon would have helped out.
> Whoa! Can we slow down a bit here? That’s a lot of “bans,” a word I’ve
> never considered using regarding model airplane events, including the
> ones you mentioned. In any case,“ban” (your choice of words, not mine)
> is a bit severe, don’t you think?
Dropped or banned what is the difference really if you can't fly the
event, dropping it from indoor is essentially banning it form being
flown but that is semantics . Anyhow, it was just an extension of the
argument I was laying out based on my interpretation of your original
post in regards to dropping Nocal. The point I was getting at was if
Nocals fly too long and needs to be dropped as an indoor event , then
what about other indoor FAC events that fly too long as well when flown
indoors? Should they be dropped as well? Most can't get 2 minutes
indoors with a Golden Age scale model but when some guys get 4+ minutes
in that event that is OK, that is twice the flight time. But if an
"indoor" guy does 7minutes with a Nocal that event is "ruined" as
others can only do 5 minutes. So it is OK to fly twice as long in other
events except Nocal. Where does it end is what I was getting at but
since you were tongue and cheek in your initial comment then my point is
moot now.
> It was interesting to see you invoke the name of the late, great Jack
> McGillivray. What does he have to do with a discussion of suggested
> changes in the No-Cal rules? And what “double standard” are you
> talking about?
>
The reason I mention Jack is he is the person I knew the longest in
regards to FAC events, met him when I was about 12 years old, and he was
the biggest influence on me personally in regards to indoor scale flying
as he was able to make indoor scale models light, fly long and get lots
of scale points and that appealed to me. The double standard I am
referring to when certain FAC guys like Jack for example (as I knew him
the best) would make a 1.5 gram Cessna Cardinal Nocal, or 5 gram peanut
scale models, or use gear boxes to get longer flight times, and that was
all OK and in the spirit of FAC when he did it. But when the rest of the
indoor duration guys pickup on what was being done, then they were
somehow ruining the events with their competitive drive, etc. Jack was
very innovating in adapting FAC events to indoor techniques as well as
Ken Groves (laminating tissue layers together to get rid of bulkheads
and stringer etc, talk about skills needed to make molds etc). Jack is
the one who told me how to fudge the wings on nocals so I find it funny
when I now mention the fudging of nocal parts people are appalled by it
but it has been going on for 20+ years and by big time FAC modelers.
Gorden Roberts had a plan for a Spirfitre Nocal that had a triangular
hollow motor stock. That was OK he was a FAC great, but an indoor guys
rolls a hollow tube for a motorstick and they ruin the event with
special indoor skills. That is what I was getting at. Don't know else
how to explain it.
Don S.
Received on Sun Jun 10 2012 - 13:23:12 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:47 CET