I'm going to bow out of this conversation by simply quoting John Kagan from
a nearly identical conversation in 2012. The original topic was the
evolution of A-6.
"The challenge of our activity is to coax the most performance out of an
airplane, within a certain set of rules. It should be no surprise that
people figure out what works and that the times go up. You can call it
a "virus",
but it is really just people being successful in what they set out to do.
Similarly, there can be a perception that experts ruin the "beginner
classes", but an expert is simply someone who does well, and doing well is
the whole point.
Lastly, different events highlight different building techniques and
materials. Any event can be built simply. Every event can get tricky if you
want to win.
An event where beginners can always be competitive with experienced fliers,
is folly. By the very definition, if there is any experience to be gained,
then those who have gained it will do better than those who haven't. The
only way would be to reduce it to a simple game of chance.
An event where "experts" are banned is a paradox. Beginners become experts.
Rule: "you can fly this event, but you can never do well in it. If you do,
you can't fly it".
An event that is "easy for beginners to build" is simply a projection of
the rule-maker. Some people think covering with tissue is easier than with
film – likely people who know how to cover with tissue. Some people think
covering with film is easier than tissue – likely people who know how to
cover with film. Some people think solid motorsticks are easier than tubes
– likely people who know how to tune a solid stick by sanding in flex. Some
people think tube motorsticks are easier than solid ones – likely people
who know how to roll a tube. Some people think that fixed pitch props are
easier – likely people who know how to make a good flaring fixed pitch
prop. Some people think VP's are easier – likely people who know how to
make and adjust a VP. About the only thing universally true is that heavier
models require less finesse than lighter ones.
There are, however, actual ways to bring newcomers into the fold.
Example 1: the Pro/Am. Give beginners a boost. They get to experience the
fun of Indoor FF without first having to overcome the barriers to entry.
Once they have a feel for what is involved, and have the first-hand thrill
of seeing their plane in the air, they are hopefully better prepared to
continue on their own.
Example 2: the LSF model of achievement levels. A fixed set of achievement
criteria that stay the same for each beginner, but give a sense of
accomplishment for reaching a goal. Level 1 could be: fly 5 minutes indoors
with any model. Perform the task in front of the required witnesses, send
in a form, and get your name on an online list with a patch or a sticker to
advertise your greatness.
Example 3: simply expose people to what we do. Nobody I know that flies
Indoor FF does so because it was easy. They were attracted by the beauty
and grace, and by the challenge. Everybody thinks that Indoor FF is
cool. A small
slice has the interest, aptitude, and motivation to participate."
On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 12:04 PM, Chris pseshooter3d_at_yahoo.com
[Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> Bill, I see your point, and it is a good one. But again, I also see a lot
> of effort being put forth to make P18 a recognized event. From the sound
> of it, it doesn't need to be recognized. It seems like P18 and its intent
> will be just fine where it is now....flown locally/regionally for fun.
>
> I also don't know your experience with beginners, but most of them I have
> worked with really like the idea of a challenge. That's why they picked up
> competitive indoor modeling in the first place. To be very blunt, and very
> honest, if a beginner perceives indoor to be too hard and they don't want
> to step up to the challenge, no matter what events are made for them, they
> won't stick with indoor very long.
>
> Now, that is not to say ALL indoor flying has to be competitive. But if
> it isn't competitive, by definition, it doesn't need rules. If people want
> to have informal competitions with P18, then a basic set of parameters
> should be provided. And that is about all the effort we need to put into
> the "rules" for P18.
>
> It seems, as Joshua ascertained, our efforts would be better off showing
> people how to build any and all types of indoor models to have a
> significant impact on growing the hobby and sport of indoor flying.
>
> Chris
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jun 8, 2016, at 2:46 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> <<Why would we make the event official if we adopted your proposal? It
> would not be possible to keep records, and nobody could win the event at
> NATS>>
>
> On the whole winning is not the point for the beginner. And by the way,
> there is plenty of incentive and building and flying to be done by a
> beginner before he or she gets to the point that they can do two minutes
> three times in one day.
>
> It is seeing things from the top down that make us think winning and
> records are what matters. If we don't have more participants in a few years
> it'll be really easy to win and set records all alone.
>
> Bill C
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Jake Palmer 82.jake_at_gmail.com
> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Why would we make the event official if we adopted your proposal? It
>> would not be possible to keep records, and nobody could win the event at
>> NATS.
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 4:17 PM, William Carney wcarneyjx_at_gmail.com
>> [Indoor_Construction] <Indoor_Construction_at_yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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 Wed Jun 08 2016 - 13:19:31 CEST
This archive was generated by Yannick on Sat Dec 14 2019 - 19:13:48 CET