Re: Re: P-18 plans and Specs

From: William D. Gowen <wdgowen_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 18:00:45 -0400

I agree. (shocking as that might be)

On 4/1/2016 5:52 PM, Don DeLoach ddeloach_at_comcast.net
[Indoor_Construction] wrote:
> Good points Bill. All sound justifications for voting YES and moving
> the P-18 proposal to the cross proposal phase.
>
> DD
>
> On Apr 1, 2016, at 3:46 PM, 'William D. Gowen' wdgowen_at_gmail.com
> <mailto:wdgowen_at_gmail.com> [Indoor_Construction]
> <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com>> wrote:
>
>> Here's a radical idea for the next rules cycle:
>>
>> If you were to make the CURRENT Wright stuff rules into an AMA event
>> you could potentially tap into THOUSANDS of kids who already have a
>> model to fly - some of them on a very advanced level. Then if the
>> event were made an official event instead of a provisional event they
>> could go to USIC and compete for a National Championship trophy.
>>
>> The AMA rule could be written so that the current SO rules would
>> automatically be the AMA rules as soon as they are published. This is
>> already done with FAI events so it seems like there is a clear
>> precedent for allowing this. In the years that there is no Wright
>> Stuff event the AMA could keep the last official set of rules until
>> they change.
>>
>> Re: the P-18 proposal
>>
>> For the people who think the beginner event rules should encourage
>> more advanced techniques the SO rules allow any type of propeller
>> construction as long as the size limit is observed. So when a kid (or
>> older person) wants to move into something more complicated than an
>> unmodified plastic propeller the opportunity is there without having
>> to tackle a new event.
>>
>> I think a good cross proposal for the P-18 event would be to allow
>> any type of prop that meets the size limit that is decided on. I
>> would personally prefer to see an efficient prop that is readily
>> available. The Ikara props meet the bill. They don't need the hours
>> of scraping that used to be required for heavier types of plastic
>> props. As for size a 9" prop would be much more suitable for an 18"
>> span model than a 5.5" prop.
>>
>> And one last thing about the P-18 rules - a rubber weight limit would
>> take away the need for using motors that are several times the 10"
>> hook to hook specification. The Wright Stuff models fly very well on
>> limited rubber. If you allow unlimited rubber then you are going to
>> see people who learn to use sleeves blow everyone else out of the
>> water and I'm sure no one wants that to happen.
>>
>> On 4/1/2016 4:47 PM, ykleetx_at_gmail.com [Indoor_Construction] wrote:
>>>
>>> The LPP balsa prop can be intimidating to a BEGINNER.
>>>
>>>
>>> However, the LPP balsa prop should not be difficult for an
>>> intermediate outdoor freeflight modeler. Outdoor balsa props are
>>> much harder to make than LPP balsa props.
>>>
>>> From this standpoint, I don't consider P-18 as a gateway event from
>>> outdoor to indoor. It's a beginner indoor event.
>>>
>>> Another point: Instead of making P-18 an official AMA event, I much
>>> prefer a well establish and well experimented Wright Stuff model --
>>> like the 2010 Wright Stuff. There is so much more history and
>>> experience with a Wright Stuff model, and it makes much more sense
>>> to adopt it instead of something new.
>>>
>>> -Kang
>>
>
Received on Fri Apr 01 2016 - 15:00:54 CEST