Sure Jake, but at some time in the future it will be an official event. I
don't want to see it go the way of EZB.
Bill C
On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:39 PM, Jake Palmer 82.jake_at_gmail.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Just for clarification, the P-18 proposal is to make it a provisional
> event. That means it can't be flown as an official event at NATS, and no
> records will be kept.
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> That works too. Like I said, I have no dog in this fight, so it's all
>> good.
>>
>> There is always this option as well....if no records are going to be
>> kept, draft a very basic set of rules and let the people that actually fly
>> the event drive its evolution. In A6 for example, the people building and
>> flying the event thought plastic covering best served the interests of the
>> event and competitors. Now any kid building an A6 can legally use a veggie
>> bag and have a competitive model.
>>
>> To be very honest, if records are not being kept and there is effectively
>> no winner, why have rules at all, beyond the size of the model and prop?
>>
>> I mean really, that will keep the record hunters away, as there is no
>> record to obtain. By eliminating a winner, there is no incentive, beyond
>> personal goals, to push the performance of the model. Finally without a
>> defined winner, it is truly just for fun.
>>
>> If that is the case, and we just want a fun event to introduce people to
>> indoor, why does it even need to be an official AMA event?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 2:43 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> <<With regards to the max rule, how about a two minute max per flight,
>> with 3 maxes getting you into a fly off. For the fly off, increase the max
>> by a minute per flight. Once you no longer max but other fliers do, you
>> are out of the fly off. This sounds really similar to how outdoor glider,
>> P30, and other outdoor AMA events work. I don't see why it wouldn't work
>> indoor. If that becomes too easy, set a max time and specify flights must
>> be no touch. That'll keep it interesting in Cat 1.>>
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> This totally defeats the purpose of the Max Out rule. You put a beginner
>> in a fly off with Jim Richmond and he/she is gonna get creamed no matter
>> what the rules. Soon experts will be doing 4 minutes and dominating the
>> event. We need to de-incentivize the experts from pushing times up. The
>> best way I can think of to do this is to remove the ability for them to
>> beat up on all the beginners. They can tie them but they can't beat them
>> except the ones who can't do two minutes yet.
>>
>> Remember this is entry level. We are not trying to reinvent the wheel. As
>> I've said I don't want to see these things doing 5 minutes. The day we do
>> the event has lost it's purpose. Oh and another thing, let's borrow a page
>> from FAC and be sure that no records are kept.
>>
>> I know that what I am pushing is counter intuitive to the competition
>> based indoor mindset. I personally don't care who wins a P-18 event. It's
>> purpose is to attract beginners not 'win all costs' experts.
>>
>> Bill C
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 7:26 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> With regards to the max rule, how about a two minute max per flight,
>>> with 3 maxes getting you into a fly off. For the fly off, increase the max
>>> by a minute per flight. Once you no longer max but other fliers do, you
>>> are out of the fly off. This sounds really similar to how outdoor glider,
>>> P30, and other outdoor AMA events work. I don't see why it wouldn't work
>>> indoor. If that becomes too easy, set a max time and specify flights must
>>> be no touch. That'll keep it interesting in Cat 1.
>>>
>>> Chris
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 8:56 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Chris,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the kind words. I'm hoping that the discussion soon moves
>>> from the rational for the event itself and moves to the active discussion
>>> about what the rules for the event will be.
>>>
>>> I have yet to see any cross discussion regarding my "Max
>>> Out" suggestion.
>>>
>>> Bill C
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bill C,
>>>>
>>>> You bring up some good points and your responses show thought and
>>>> insight into the event. Note that my questions are/were not because I do
>>>> not favor the event, but rather to see if another event was being added
>>>> just for the sake of it, or if there was a clear rationale.
>>>>
>>>> I might add though that sometimes we underestimate our beginners. I
>>>> worked with a student who prior to 2015 had 0 modeling experience. That
>>>> young man went to the Kent State contest and broke the Cat2 Jr. F1L record
>>>> and flew A6 within a minute of Gowen's time. Good performance in advanced
>>>> events is very possible for new fliers, provided they have a decent
>>>> mentor. If people who want to fly indoor are having a hard time finding a
>>>> mentor they are doing something terribly wrong as everyone I have met in
>>>> indoor, including the most competitive experts, are always willing to help.
>>>>
>>>> With luck P18 will serve as a good gateway model---"son, where did you
>>>> learn how to do this?"---"I learned it from watching you dad!!!" and the
>>>> more advanced events will grow. I for one would love to see 10+ F1Ls and
>>>> LPP's in the air at Kent.
>>>>
>>>> Chris
>>>>
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 4:56 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey Chris,
>>>>
>>>> Hear are my thoughts in response to your questions:
>>>>
>>>> <<I can see how P18 would attract new fliers. But then what? Are they
>>>> going to fly P18 forever? If the idea of competition in the other indoor
>>>> events is a barrier to entry for a lot of people, I would think that P18
>>>> only delays the inevitable.>>
>>>>
>>>> "Then what" is probably LPP and then what ever they like, maybe they
>>>> get to see some scale models flying indoor and get hooked on that.. P-18,
>>>> if kept at it's entry level operating style should give them confidence to
>>>> move. Maybe along the way they win a local contest or two scoring their
>>>> P-18 in LPP. By the time the do that They are an indoor flyer. Something we
>>>> need more of.
>>>>
>>>> <<I would also like to know what bag of tricks you are referring to
>>>> that "ruins" other events. >>
>>>>
>>>> The bag of expert tricks is deep and wide not just limited to building
>>>> and trimming. Experts also have access to rule changes. Remember what A-6
>>>> was like in the beginning?
>>>>
>>>> <<One just has to be willing to accept the techniques of the experts
>>>> and learn them.>>
>>>>
>>>> Having an airplane they can actually BUILD on their own without
>>>> special tools and equipment is crucial. Seeing their own handiwork fly is
>>>> something they will not forget. P-18 provides a learning platform that is
>>>> accessible to the average Joe. extraordinary candidates will move past it
>>>> quickly
>>>>
>>>> <<Again, I get how P18 could get fliers into the indoor scene, but how
>>>> do we keep them if they fear competition?>>
>>>>
>>>> We provide them an arena in which to gain confidence free from experts
>>>> getting scores they can't fathom achieving.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Bill C
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:07 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I can see how P18 would attract new fliers. But then what? Are they
>>>>> going to fly P18 forever? If the idea of competition in the other indoor
>>>>> events is a barrier to entry for a lot of people, I would think that P18
>>>>> only delays the inevitable.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would also like to know what bag of tricks you are referring to that
>>>>> "ruins" other events. A mechanized VP prop would be the one thing that
>>>>> might give first time builders trouble. But for a weight restricted event
>>>>> like LPP or F1L, I just don't see anything out there that is too
>>>>> difficult. I think quite the opposite is happening actually. The modern
>>>>> LPP being built of carbon fiber is easier to build due to the fact that
>>>>> expensive balsa does not need to be graded and tested for stiffness. The
>>>>> carbon hub LPP prop that is being more widely used is also not difficult to
>>>>> construct. If one simply does some research, they will find that this
>>>>> indoor thing while difficult to master, is not difficult to get started
>>>>> in. One just has to be willing to accept the techniques of the experts and
>>>>> learn them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Again, I get how P18 could get fliers into the indoor scene, but how
>>>>> do we keep them if they fear competition?
>>>>>
>>>>> Chris
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 6, 2016, at 2:47 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The purpose is to attract new indoor flyers. The purpose of the Max
>>>>> Out suggestion is to keep it approachable to beginners. I'm not trying to
>>>>> discourage anybody from flying the event, just to keep them from ruining
>>>>> it. All of the experts' bag of tricks are useless and actually detrimental
>>>>> in the event. I don't want to see these things flying for 5 minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:40 PM, William Carney <wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Good point Bill. We don't want this event to attract experienced
>>>>>> flyers. We want it to attract raw beginners. There does need to be a
>>>>>> balance though. For an event to be considered successful it must have
>>>>>> participants. I think a club who has a high number of experts who can Max
>>>>>> Out in P-18 might be a club who is having a lot of fun without ruining the
>>>>>> appeal of the event to beginners.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Experts can fly this event all they want, but they are not going to
>>>>>> 'sour the milk' if all they can do is three maxes. Any real expert or
>>>>>> progressing new indoor flyer is going to see quickly that a real LPP will
>>>>>> be far superior to a P-18 and will want to build one to compete as such.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Some will take many seasons to get there P-18 to do 2 minutes
>>>>>> consistently, during which time they are exposed to the sights and
>>>>>> atmosphere of indoor flying.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:17 PM, William Gowen wdgowen_at_gmail.com
>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Maybe you can just make a list of all the people who you consider
>>>>>>> too advanced to fly the event and attach that to the rules.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or maybe you can come up with a rule that anyone who has ever flown
>>>>>>> a legal AMA indoor duration model in their lifetime is barred from the event
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I really don't see that this event has any attraction for advanced
>>>>>>> fliers. I've already said that I won't fly it. And that doesn't mean that
>>>>>>> I'm opposed to the event.
>>>>>>> On Jun 5, 2016 8:51 PM, "William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction]" <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ray,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I propose that this event be flown as a two minute max event. No
>>>>>>>> fly offs, no tie breakers. If an contestant wants to get full credit for
>>>>>>>> his/her efforts they may but the times are scored as an official in LPP.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The purpose of this proposal is the remove the incentive of
>>>>>>>> "Experts" from flooding the event and making it unappealing to a true
>>>>>>>> beginner. If you can get one of these things to fly for two minutes three
>>>>>>>> times in one day you are probably ready to tackle a true LPP and then... By
>>>>>>>> the time a beginner has gotten enough experience to "Max Out" a P-18 he or
>>>>>>>> she has set the Indoor FF hook pretty deep.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The rules, as written, produce an airplane that make two minutes a
>>>>>>>> nominal goal. I kike seeing these models fly as they are very "indoor
>>>>>>>> like" and I've seen their appeal to the public. I just don't want to see
>>>>>>>> these things doing 5 minutes. Sure irt can probably be done but that is not
>>>>>>>> the point of the event.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill C
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:54 PM, rbharlan_at_comcast.net
>>>>>>>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The cross proposal window is May 31 to July 15, so now is the time
>>>>>>>>> to submit any cross proposals.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I expect to submit one to change the prop size max to 6", instead
>>>>>>>>> of 5.5". There are a lot more 6" props out there than 5.5's, namely at
>>>>>>>>> Volare who has six kinds of 6" props.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I haven't checked for a specific cross proposal form at AMA, and,
>>>>>>>>> of course, if I check now, Yahoo will blow away all of this discourse and I
>>>>>>>>> don't want to type it again
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What other ideas do you have for the event, Bill?.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
Received on Tue Jun 07 2016 - 16:17:48 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET