Re: Re: Science Olympiad Elastic Glider event

From: William Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2012 09:02:52 -0400

Jeff
Thank you for your reply.

I see some likely problems with protests at local and state contests if
people decide to aggressively pursue some of the more extreme
interpretations of the rules that are possible. If you want to discuss this
privately I would be happy to do so. If you're comfortable with letting the
chips fall where they may then i understand and will be watching with
interest.
On Oct 16, 2012 10:59 PM, "Jeff" <janderson_at_twmi.rr.com> wrote:

> **
>
>
> Bill, I know you are a dedicated SO mentor and event supervisor, well
> aware of how SO works. If it seemed otherwise, I apologise.
>
> As to my statement, I wanted to point out additional differences from AMA
> rules, and preempt assumptions that AMA practice applied to those not
> familiar with SO, nothing more.
>
> If I was inappropriately terse or short, again, I apologize.
>
> Jeff Anderson
> Livonia, MI
>
> --- In Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com, William Gowen <wdgowen_at_...>
> wrote:
> >
> > 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_...> 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 Wed Oct 17 2012 - 06:02:53 CEST