Re: Re: Science Olympiad Elastic Glider event

From: William Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2012 10:28:07 -0400

I think that Jeff's reply to my post about the SO glider event was very
disappointing and deserves more comment. I have been mentoring kids in the
Science Olympiad program for 14 years and I totally understand that SO
rules have no relationship to AMA rules. All of my activities in the past
have been to help SO kids to successfully compete in the aero events while
carefully observing the rules governing those events. I also was the Event
Coordinator for the Georgia state finals for several years which certainly
requires knowledge of the rules.

Several of us thought from a first reading of the rules that they were very
similar to the AMA SCLG rules. My post was only meant as an alert to
potential mentors that the rules were different from what we operate under
in the AMA glider events. Teams may use methods that are completely foreign
to understanding how and why catapult gliders work. If this is the goal of
the SO rules - "thinking outside the box" - then it is certainly their
right to have that kind of rule set.

This thinking was evident when competitors were allowed to stick
helicopters to the ceiling in the last couple of years - which of course
didn't help them understand how to build a more efficient helicopter. The
methods that will probably show up in the elastic launched glider event are
also probably not going to advance the students' knowledge of aerodynamics
but may make them more successful lawyers.

Bill Gowen
(starting 15th year of mentoring)

On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Jeff <janderson_at_twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Couple of other differences.
> - Nose has to be blunt, details in the rules.
> - No restriction on wing shape changing, ie folding wings are allowed.
> - No restriction on how MANY wings.
> - Probably other things we haven't thought of.
>
> Yes it was deliberate.
>
> Do not assume any AMA general or specific rules apply to SO events. The
> ONLY rules that apply are those explicitly written into the SO rules.
>
> This used to come up with Wright Stuff where AMA flyers would assume AMA
> rules like no torque burners applied. It was established then, that because
> it was not in the SO rules it was NOT forbidden. The SO rules are the SO
> rules.
>
> Jeff Anderson
> One of the SO rules writers
> Livonia, MI
>
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, "Bill" <wdgowen_at_...> wrote:
> >
> > A couple of people have stated that the rules for this event are exactly
> the same as AMA SCLG rules. Actually they aren't. There is a small
> difference in maximum wingspan - 30cm vs. 12". But the biggest difference
> in specs is that there is no chord limit for the SO glider.
> >
> > The chord limit isn't a big deal IMO because the SCLG wings are already
> at a pretty low AR. Increasing the chord beyond 3" may help but I don't
> think it's a game changer.
> >
> > What can be a game changer is the rules that were left out:
> >
> > No maximum launch device length.
> > No minimum launch height.
> >
> > Since some of the people involved in the rules writing probably know of
> the history of AMA glider rules then there is a question as to whether
> these omissions were deliberate. If so and if there are no rules
> clarifications issued be prepared for models and methods of launching that
> bear no resemblance to AMA gliders.
> >
>
>
>
Received on Tue Oct 16 2012 - 07:28:08 CEST