Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
October 15, 2018, 09:26:15 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: BMFA INDOOR FREE FLIGHT SCALE NATIONALS 2018  (Read 9066 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 580


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #150 on: May 09, 2018, 05:55:26 PM »

Nigel (and everyone)

Nats 2019: weekend of 27-28 April
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 333



Ignore
« Reply #151 on: May 09, 2018, 07:14:30 PM »

Nigel

What Graham has posted above is what has been booked - however I have yet to receive confirmation of those dates by the manager of the facility.

Regards John
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 333



Ignore
« Reply #152 on: May 13, 2018, 12:26:11 PM »

Hi All

The dates are now confirmed by the Walsall facility manager for next years indoor FF scale nats - trimming and set up 27th and competitions 28th April 2019.

Regards John M
Logged
danmellor
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 51
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,169




Ignore
« Reply #153 on: June 10, 2018, 02:36:19 PM »

Alex W has the report in the new RCM&E. Bittersweet to see that my Cub made the Heading Pic, just as it's about to career into the barrier...!

Cheers,

Dan.
Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 59
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,231


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #154 on: June 10, 2018, 04:02:55 PM »

I forget to look at the RCM&E for the odd bit of FF sometimes .... thanks for the heads up, Dan  Smiley

Thanks (belated!) for the dates too, John .... competing or not, I look forward to it the same.
Logged
Yak 52
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 57
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,274


Free Flight Vagrant



Ignore
« Reply #155 on: June 11, 2018, 10:32:18 AM »

Mike's report is up:
http://www.ffscale.co.uk/page3al.htm
Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,003




Ignore
« Reply #156 on: June 11, 2018, 11:45:55 AM »

Thanks Jon for that heads-up... and to Mike for yet another excellent report!

A propos the current discussions about KS and Open classes, interesting to read what Mike wrote in his report:

As noted above, Kit Scale has proved to be very successful, but not in the way it was originally envisaged, which was to act as a feeder class to encourage more people to enter the Open classes. Any feedback on this would be very welcome, so please drop me an email with your ideas and comments. I have a vested interest in this, as I am helping John Minchell organise the Indoor Nats next year, and will be in a position to contribute to the discussions at the BMFA tech. committee meetings, as well as talking with the other organisers. If you enter Kit Scale now but have never entered an open class, please tell us why not. What’s putting you off? Is it the documentation requirements? The extra detailing you feel you need to add? What could we as organisers do to encourage you to take part? I personally l feel the gulf between kit scale and open scale is not as big as you may think. A light, well trimmed model with a simple colour scheme could easily get you near the top of the rankings. This year you couldn’t have finished lower than fifth if you’d got a 15 second flight in! I would be very happy to give advice about documentation requirements for the open classes and finishing etc. – just drop me an email and I’ll do what I can to help and encourage you!

Smiley
Logged
ffscale
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 23
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 197



Ignore
« Reply #157 on: June 11, 2018, 01:36:12 PM »

Sorry it took so long to get the Indoor Nats report out - I seem to have even less time for website updates since I retired!  Plus I'm trying to get a new model finished for the FAC Nats in July.

John Minchell has been keeping me in the loop with comments he's received on the kit scale /open classes debate, and I've been following the discussion here on Andy Sephton's proposed rule changes, but, as I mentioned on the website, I'd be very happy to receive further comments. 

Mike S
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 91
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,317




Ignore
« Reply #158 on: June 12, 2018, 06:43:03 PM »

Great report and pics as always, Mike. Many thanks!
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 580


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #159 on: July 24, 2018, 05:17:58 AM »

I’m reluctant to open this can of worms again, but as its not really been closed yet and i’ve just replied directly to Andy regarding his indoor scale rules proposals, the one question i would really like to get a handle on is why anyone would think combining the presently separate open classes into one single entity is a good idea?

Surely this would further degrade entry numbers by forcing some competitors to apparently choose one power source or another for his or hers presumably single permitted entry, whereas before they would have entered a model in each of the open classes? As it is, there seems to be a school of thought that electric is somehow the easy option, so a combined class may see the departure of some open rubber flyers (and in fact put off some people who were considering giving it a go with an open rubber model) who feel disadvantaged by the lack of an on/off switch on their model.

It must be clear from the above that as an open flyer myself i oppose any combining of these classes, but i’m genuinely interested in the reasons anyone could present for the opposite view?

Graham
Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 59
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,231


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #160 on: July 24, 2018, 05:47:06 AM »

I agree with you entirely Graham.
I feel that the success of Kit Scale has caused an extended 'blip' in open entries.
I liken it to formula motor racing .... some of the 'lower' types of formula racing are very popular and give close and exciting racing ... but it's still F1 that is the pinnacle.
The open classes are the pinnacle for me. Combining them can only send things further backwards as I see it.
This would leave just one chance against all the well known names .... an even more formidable task.
Comments have been made about the low level of qualifying flights .... but this is not usually the case (on average) with the established names.
Logged
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 333



Ignore
« Reply #161 on: July 24, 2018, 07:22:41 AM »

As I have said before and Graham and Mike are asking above - don't just contribute to the debate on the forums - write an email to myself or Mike or Andy Sephton explaining your stance on the proposed changes, together with your reasons. 
Only in this way can the STC take account of you views - endless posts on a forum will not be taken into account as we cannot follow all of them on all forums and threads. 
To date, there are some well known & respected top modellers who have only given verbal comments and as such, they won't be included in the discussion, as the STC needs written viewpoints to be able to add them to the "for and the against piles" to come to a reasoned conclusion.

John M
Logged
Graham Banham
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 19
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 580


Topic starter


Ignore
« Reply #162 on: July 24, 2018, 08:18:08 AM »

Agree wholeheartedly with John, which is why as well here as on HPA i’ve responded both to him and Andy directly with my views on the indoor scale rules and proposals subject.

Graham
Logged
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 91
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,317




Ignore
« Reply #163 on: July 24, 2018, 11:10:03 AM »

Agree with Graham on the not merging the classes, for all the reasons he mentions and yes, I've already emailed my views too.

Also agree that the STC, who are valiantly slogging away unpaid on our behalf, should certainly NOT have to spend their time trawling around forums etc. to see what people think.
HOWEVER, with great respect to John, I don't quite see the logic of this:
...there are some well known & respected top modellers who have only given verbal comments and as such, they won't be included in the discussion
If someone on the STC actually knows what a 'respected top modeller' thinks about an issue, either after chatting to him/her at an event or from reading a forum like this one, isn't it a bit perverse not to then include that expert's views in the STC's discussion? Surely you just risk driving that top modeller away from contests? However they're come by, the views of such people (who by definition have already contributed enormously to the hobby) should count for more than those of someone who is just sort-of-maybe-thinking-about getting around to participating one day. Shouldn't they?
« Last Edit: July 24, 2018, 12:14:30 PM by Pete Fardell » Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 59
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,231


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #164 on: July 24, 2018, 05:21:57 PM »

I understand what you are saying John .. but I think it's a good idea to discuss these things on a forum such as this.
It gives an indication of people's feelings and if a consensus can be reached then all the better?
Could a person here gather the thoughts of others and put this forward in writing, or does one have to individually sign off one's opinion?
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 41
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,515




Ignore
« Reply #165 on: July 25, 2018, 06:37:04 AM »

A sound idea Russ!  If simply coordinating and compiling views for submission is all that is required I could consider volunteering!
Logged
Andrew Darby
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 63
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,122




Ignore
« Reply #166 on: July 25, 2018, 07:27:29 AM »

It would be Nice if the BMFA could have a forum like this of their own...

Andrew
Logged

Klunk
SP250
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 333



Ignore
« Reply #167 on: July 25, 2018, 07:46:42 AM »

Pete

The conversations had with the respective "top guys" were not with me - so I don't know what their viewpoint was, I just know they took place and cannot speak for the person those conversations were had with.  

Russ

By all means discuss on here and come to a personal conclusion, but you missed the point entirely.
If those views are not communicated in writing to a current member of the STC they won't get taken into account during the final analysis.

Just because I happen to read these posts and am also on the STC you might think I should do it.  
However, a written opinion is needed to have an audit trail for the STC meeting which makes the decision and that could be 12 months away.  
I aint plouging through 12 months of posts/threads to find the relevant ones just prior to the meeting.
The STC are all volunteers and spend a lot of time and personal money doing the stuff neccessary to give all you modellers the venues, the organisation the rules and the events for you to fly in/at.  
Mike Stuart and I (plus previously Graham Banham) are the only ones who read this forum (on the STC) the other 5 members do not.

If someone does collect all the views here, we (the STC) do not have proof that they are / are not skewing the result.
Hence the insistance on each individual writing (email) to us their views on the proposed rules changes by Andy Sephton.
I hope that clears it up for you all.

Regards John M
 
Logged
DavidJP
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 41
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 2,515




Ignore
« Reply #168 on: July 25, 2018, 08:48:26 AM »

I quite understand and agree with all you have said John and one does not need to be a competitor to recognise basic requirements nor why if people feel even moderately strongly about an issue they cannot make the probably  no more than the moderate effort to place it before those concerned.  Of course the views must be reasonbly shown to be valid. 

I would consider assisting in collating views simply because it is something I could do and recognise the need for ensuring validity. Because I can see that the STC do shoulder a heavy and on occasions complex burden and  if I could make a contribution would like to do so, not being otherwise qualified to do much else. 

But that would not remove the need for people to communicate. Yes I could trawl sites like HP but that would mean contacting the person posting and they responding.  More laborious than they contacting the STC direct perhaps. In the past in another life I would simply have said “put up or shut up”. But then you chaps are more tolerant!

Although a little naive possibly, I consider that overall  the Scale Rules are pretty sound but things change and modifications can be needed from time to time.  And they have to be considered from  a competitors point of view and judges and organisers. What is pleasing is that unlike other instances I have known here everyone seems pretty genial about things.

Logged
F F modeller
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 59
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 3,231


Russ Lister



Ignore
« Reply #169 on: July 25, 2018, 09:05:35 AM »

John,
I'm not sure how I have 'missed the point entirely'?
I am fully aware of your request to submit ideas to the STC .... I am merely asking a question about the method.
Logged
Indoorflyer
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 294



Ignore
« Reply #170 on: July 25, 2018, 09:24:27 AM »

As a casual observer (in the USA), I took a look round the BMFA website and found "public" info pertaining to the STC. One can send an email to individual STC members, wouldn't that be an effective way for a member to provide input on proposals? The indoor aspect of Scale is only represented by one out of seven members. There may be somewhat of an administrative "filter" if sending an email to only a couple of non committee members. Sometimes the best communication is not "preaching to the choir", but with the other 6 committee persons who will be voting (hopefully in a fully informed manner) on rule changes.
Logged

Make the same mistake on both sides; nobody will notice...
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 39
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 437




Ignore
« Reply #171 on: July 25, 2018, 09:45:40 AM »

Just a "correction" on what indoorflyer wrote, looking at the member list of the scale committee, I see the names of Andy Sephton, Ian Pallister, John Minchell and Bill Dennis.

I do not know of any indoor scale background of the other members, but these names alone have more than enough knowledge and experience on the subject (much more, actually...).

Judging also from Chris Allen, the only other member I personally know, and Steve Kessel whom I met only shortly, as I see it, the overall level is pretty high in the STC.

As to the issue in question, I have expressed some views in the past, on the forum only, when Andy initially expressed some thoughts.
I do not think I am qualified to say anything about the way the BMFA Indoor Scale Nats are going to be run. I am neither British, nor do I regularly attend (unfortunately).

Regardless, a possible combining of the two open classes is to me a step backwards. In Nijmegen we moved to the oposite direction, making a subdivision between CO2 and electric. Of course, there the competition is two (even three) days long, but interest was there anyway. Only the poor judges had a hard time, but they did not seem to complain, at least not openly.

As very clearly requested by Andy and John, those directly affected, should indeed spend a few minutes of writing down their thoughts and sending them over. Otherwise, they will have no right to complain at the next event, if things did not go as they might have wished...

Please consider this a completely informal opinion, in any case a personal one, of course...

George

PS. John, we somehow managed to avoid those beers in Meiringen... So, Nijmegen is now my only way to make things right...
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
g_kandylakis
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 39
Offline Offline

Greece Greece

Posts: 437




Ignore
« Reply #172 on: July 25, 2018, 09:58:13 AM »

A correction to the correction...(sorry Indoorflyer  Smiley)

It might be that I was looking at an obsolete list  Embarrassed

The current one must be here

http://scale.bmfa.org/stc-members

In any case, well known scale modellers, and in effect, that does not change the overall meaning of my previous post...

George
Logged

scale free flight & micro RC
Pete Fardell
Palladium Member
********

Kudos: 91
Online Online

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 4,317




Ignore
« Reply #173 on: July 25, 2018, 02:10:59 PM »

Pete
The conversations had with the respective "top guys" were not with me - so I don't know what their viewpoint was, I just know they took place and cannot speak for the person those conversations were had with.  
Fair enough. Apologies for rocking the boat and I can see that it is much better for the STC to have a proper set of written responses to inform their discussions. I can sort of see your point too that someone submitting a compilation of comments from a forum like this one could, in theory, skew it in favour of his or her own viewpoint. However I really doubt anyone would be that devious in this friendliest of hobbies!

Anyway, to get back to what Graham asked... I'd also love to hear the arguments in favour of combining the open classes.

Logged
Jack Plane
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 24
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 1,003




Ignore
« Reply #174 on: July 28, 2018, 04:32:44 AM »


Anyway, to get back to what Graham asked... I'd also love to hear the arguments in favour of combining the open classes.


I don't think there are any good arguments, just that 2018 was a particularly quiet year in terms of entries in the two Open classes, each a third down on the average, but not necessarily indicative of a radical, permanent downward trend.  Figures from the last ten years (Rubber, CO2/Electric):

2018 : 8,5
2017: 11,7
2016: 14,9
2015: 12,8
2014: 15,7
2013: 17,7
2012: 15,7
2011: 12,9
2010: 11,8
2009: 13,8

AVGE: 12.8, 7.5

Two other points:
(i)  In each year there has always been a proportion of models failing to achieve a flight score in Open classes, so nothing new there.
(ii) I'm lining up to enter Open CO2 next year, Andy Blackburn to enter Open Rubber, and we each intend to then enter both classes in subsequent years; and I suspect that there are other relative newcomers that could indeed do likewise.



It would be Nice if the BMFA could have a forum like this of their own...

Andrew

Now, wouldn't that be a good use of resources?!
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!