In 1987-1997 there were 100+ flyers at Johnson City every year.
Now that there's only 30 at the Nats, are you all still happy with the
trajectory of Indoor? How low will that number go before you acknowledge
that change is needed?
In the meantime the Outdoor Nats is holding steady at 175-225+ flyers
since the 1990s. I'm not saying Outdoor is doing everything right, but
clearly Free Flighters are voting with their feet. I just last week
spent time with several ex-Indoor flyers at the big outdoor week at Lost
Hills. Would it be useful to ask these guys why they stopped flying Indoor?
I'm sincerely trying to understand your thesis that nothing is wrong
with Indoor. I want Indoor to survive and flourish. Twenty-seven BRAND
NEW kids building and flying P-18 kits at last year's Nats seemed to be
a good indicator of a possible way forward. But, you guys say ignore
that little glimmer, full speed ahead *the way we've always done things.*
Very Sincerely
DD
On 2/14/2016 7:59 PM, Ron Williams groncan_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] wrote:
> I
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 9:16 PM, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:wdgowen_at_gmail.com> [Indoor_Construction]
> <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> __
>
> Ron
> Although the dimensions are not the same, F1M was intended to serve
> that purpose. In fact, the first trophy I won says F1D-B on it. F1M
> has not proven to be very popular with anyone except me and Larry
> Coslick. A few others have tried it and then vanished. I absolutely
> love the event because it produces a large, slow moving, fairly
> sturdy model with hardly any restrictions other than wingspan and
> rubber weight.
>
> Some people have said or implied that "expert" fliers ruin beginner
> events. If a bunch of new people wanted to try F1M I would retire my
> model and watch them go at it. But then I would also expect the
> "experts to give up LPP and A6 so that beginning and intermediate
> fliers would have a "more level playing field".
>
> Would this lead to more people getting involved in Indoor FF? Maybe
> but I doubt it. I think most of the new (and old) people in this
> sport are doing it because it's hard, not because it's easy.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:37 PM, Ron Williams groncan_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:groncan_at_gmail.com> [Indoor_Construction]
> <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> __
>
> Being kind of house bound (it's /cold/ here), I've been
> using more than my usual capacity for attention to this
> discussion of "beginners" classes. It's a recurring Quixotic
> effort. The main reason for that is that it's always based on a
> description of a plane that can be improved by the more expert
> builder.
>
>
> How about a class that has the same dimensions as an F1D but has
> to be /heavier, /without allowing a ballasted high-tech marvel?
> Yes, as the class matured, it would engender argument and
> discussion, bit it's as easy to modify rules as it is to
> create new classes and leave them set as in the realm of the EZB.
>
> It wold be nice to have a discussion that disects the basic
> premise for a beginner's competitive class rather than repeating
> the same routine again.
>
> On Sunday, February 14, 2016, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:wdgowen_at_gmail.com> [Indoor_Construction]
> <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
> __
>
> I don't think there's antway to avoid voting on the
> proposal. This will be done by the indoor contest buard. I f
> you have opinions one way or the other then you need to bend
> the ear of your contest board representative.
>
> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 8:05 PM, joshuawfinn_at_gmail.com
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>
> wrote:
>
> __
>
> Don,
>
> My opinion is that more research needs to be done. The
> discussion thus far has revealed potential deficiencies
> in the definition of the event. It should remain
> unofficial at least until those issues are addressed.
> The proposers did not consult the rest of the indoor
> community, so these issues are predictable just like
> what happened with the F1D rules change proposal in 2014.
>
> If we as an indoor community do indeed want a serious
> beginner's event in a heavier weight class, there needs
> to be more research (see, Don DeLoach, I'm not in
> complete opposition to the idea!). I still say a more
> open-ended event is a better idea. We're pulling kids in
> three different directions--TSA has their event, and SO
> has theirs which changes annually (and currently has a
> terrible awful no good set of rules).
>
> So. Let's have P-18 at the nats, and let's wait on the
> rules proposal. Revisit when this has been hashed out fully.
>
> -Joshua Finn
>
>
>
>
>
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Received on Sun Feb 14 2016 - 19:34:49 CET