Endeavors like free flight, even RC tend to be cyclic over time. The
factors that attract or repel people tend to be mysterious since they arise
out of the whims of the general population. In the late 70s, there were
only a handful of people who were interested but that number grew, only to
recede again as time went on. I've had many a discussion with my RC friends
who are amazed that FF still exists. They think it died years ago. But it's
the attention different aspects of model aviation attract that ebbs or
grows; the hobby and its followers are still there and people come and go.
When I was a teenager model aviation was as popular and important as many
college or professional sports are today.
Here's video that might awaken some wonder - where was it taken and what
are those *women* doing flying indoor?
https://vimeo.com/1091618
If indoor is going to grow, the people who care about it have to begin to
think outside the indoor box. The complaints about the cost of Kibbe and
the idea of finding sponsorship are a step in that direction. I learned an
awful lot as a kid building and flying freeflight planes. I didn't realize
that until many years later - almost yesterday - when I read a post on the
FF forum about all one learns in figuring out how to make these things fly.
The ease with which I went through architecture school and into the
profession came out out of what I learned about engineering and design from
the mentors and friends I flew and competed with as a teenager. I was way
way ahead of my fellow students just based on what I had learned in the
hobby.
No one should feel obligated to make the kind of effort my diatribe infers.
But there are people who might be attracted to the possibilities and
communicating to others, outside of the hobby, what a wonderful and
rewarding pursuit it can be. I think of Bill Kuhl who's a regular on the FF
forum - he's very active in promoting model aviation educationally.
Back the hibernation.
On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:31 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 - 20:04:09 CET