Well said DD
Sent from my iPad
> On Feb 14, 2016, at 7:31 PM, Don DeLoach ddeloach_at_comcast.net [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> 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 - 19:52:04 CET
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET