Hip Pocket Builders' Forum

Outdoor Free Flight Forum => Dimescale / Pseudo-Dimescale => Topic started by: skyrocket on March 05, 2016, 07:20:20 AM



Title: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 05, 2016, 07:20:20 AM
Do Neo-Dime Scale models have to be published first to be eligible ?...if so, why not suck ALL the creative juices out of the hobby and say only the ACTUAL models flown in the not so "Golden 30's" can be flown and we can dispense with selecting balsa in hobby shops and thinking for that matter...


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Mooney on March 05, 2016, 08:41:46 AM
Why not try and send off a PDF of your plan to a few newsletters and see how it goes?  Via email, it shouldn't be too time consuming.  Lotsa designs have been published and dimescale is popular.  You might find it enjoyable. 


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Starduster on March 05, 2016, 08:57:58 AM
If "Neo" and "Pseudo" are the same thing (I don't see "Neo" in the FAC Rule book)

I'm no lawyer, but looking at the FAC Rules (VII-1.0 BASIC RULES, Page 13)*

"C. When a Pseudo plan is created, the plan size is limited to one sheet of 11 X 17 inch paper plus one 8.5” X 11”parts page with engineering and details in the spirit of the original era.
 1. Pseudo Dime plans must appear in a recognized publication to be approved as an Official Dimer for FAC events."

I would say, yes, the plan must be published. Now, how they define "recognized publication" I don't have a clue (is the Hip Pocket's Plan Gallery a "recognized publication"?)

http://www.flyingacesclub.com/1617rulesv1b.pdf


Ratz Edit: fixed link



Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: modler on March 05, 2016, 11:21:22 AM
Quote
(is the Hippockets Plan Gallery a "recognized publication"?)

An interesting question! I would contact the FAC administration for clarification. If nothing else you could submit the plan to the FAC newletter.

Bill.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Indoorflyer on March 05, 2016, 11:41:52 AM
I asked the same (still unanswered) question back in January in this thread:

http://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_forum/index.php?topic=19660.msg179836#msg179836

Sort of implies that even if I wanted to manufacture/sell a kit, I'd have to make the plan available first?

Stupid rules.

Bottom line you'll end up giving away your plan.  Once it's "published", it'll end up on Outerzone and aerofred...


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Bredehoft on March 05, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
I've been affected by this and I will provide my interpretation of this.

The rules of Dime require the plan to be on ONE 11x17 sheet and there is an allowance for an additional sheet of 8.5x11 for parts and instructions.

There is a very popular Dime kit (EasyBuilt - Weber Staggerwing) that is sold but NOT on a sheet that is limited to 11x17.  However, Rich Weber ' original plan was to the prescribed rules.

To avoid confusion in the future (and to allow post-publication changes such as with the Staggerwing), a standardized method of intent - verification had to be developed.  Therefore, NEW dimer plans must be published to specs to prove initial intent and compliance.

I have already had one new dime published and my future short kit will have parts AND plan enhancements  (still meeting size restrictions).

I thought about the "giving away" of my plan, but no one gets rich off of plans - at least plans of FAC Pseudo Dimers.

--george


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 05, 2016, 04:18:28 PM
Hi all,

George has hit the nail on the head--several nails, in fact.

Re: what does "published" mean, "giving away plans", etc....

Consider that there are many FACers---more than you might think---who rely on printed modeling newsletters and magazines for their FF fix.

Consider also that newsletters like the FACNL, and those published by the DC Maxecuters, Detroit Cloudbusters, etc. rely (in theory) on contributions from the FF community to stay fresh. Are YOU content to see endless rehashes of the same ol' plans we all know and love?  I'm not...

...so the best way for all you enterprising Dime Scale plan drafters out there---I KNOW you're out there! Lets see some plans, isismk2!---to get recognition of your talents is to send some of your latest beauties to one of these PAPER publications. Other wise, we're all just left wondering why you're feeling so negative.

These publications are pretty conscientious about not stepping on the toes of anybody out there who is manufacturing kits and holds copyright on a plan. But as George pointed out there is pretty much zero money to be got in selling plans these days---certainly not Dime Scale plans, anyway.  If you decide to build, say, an EasyBuilt Staggerwing Dimer, or a Chambermaid Dimer from Volare rather than just scratch-building from the abundantly available plans, that's your choice. George and Dave will happily sell you an excellent kit. Unless I'm sorely mistaken, they got the plans for free too.   

Having said all that---Indoorflyer, sorry I failed to respond to your earlier question. I realize the "stupid rules" don't spell out that the Pseudo-Dimer plan has to be on a paper publication. That is indeed the intent, however. I'd ask you to recognize that not everyone is particularly aware whether or not a .pdf needs to be scaled or not to print at 100%, or how to go about doing it. Or maybe they don't have access to an 11x17 printer, and don't know how to tile drawings.  Yeah, it's second nature to me. A lot of the folks in the FAC---not so much. A hard copy printout establishes that the plan meets the "stupid rules".

Cheers,

Dave Mitchell
Keeper of the Rules, FAC
Editor, MaxFax
Giver away of multiple original plans
     

       









I've been affected by this and I will provide my interpretation of this.

The rules of Dime require the plan to be on ONE 11x17 sheet and there is an allowance for an additional sheet of 8.5x11 for parts and instructions.

There is a very popular Dime kit (EasyBuilt - Weber Staggerwing) that is sold but NOT on a sheet that is limited to 11x17.  However, Rich Weber ' original plan was to the prescribed rules.

To avoid confusion in the future (and to allow post-publication changes such as with the Staggerwing), a standardized method of intent - verification had to be developed.  Therefore, NEW dimer plans must be published to specs to prove initial intent and compliance.

I have already had one new dime published and my future short kit will have parts AND plan enhancements  (still meeting size restrictions).

I thought about the "giving away" of my plan, but no one gets rich off of plans - at least plans of FAC Pseudo Dimers.

--george


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Ace Dugan on March 05, 2016, 05:58:33 PM
I don't believe anyone is thinking about making money selling plans.  We are all just trying to keep a near dead hobby alive.  It does kill creativity and just another hoop to jump through, and it's all because of ONE plan and ONE retailer...

Jeff Runnels


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 05, 2016, 06:01:29 PM
I don't believe anyone is thinking about making money selling plans.  We are all just trying to keep a near dead hobby alive.  It does kill creativity and just another hoop to jump through, and it's all because of ONE plan and ONE retailer...

Jeff Runnels


How does it kill creativity?  Just curious.

Dm


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: SBlanchard on March 05, 2016, 06:11:44 PM
Hey Dave,
 I have to say you did a great job answering these "concerns". I for one understand and appreciate the new rule. With so many guys out there having fun and enjoying the simple design process of dime scale models it's a good idea to have a way to be sure they all meet the rules before a bunch of them hit the field only to be DQ'd for some minor design oversight. Also, this should further fuel the creative fires by making guys aware of what had already been done and getting them to find a subject that hasn't been attempted yet. I'll bet there's some real nice odd-balls out there that would look great in the air. Besides there's a little added pride to see your design published in a local newsletter or the FAC News. Take it from someone always looking to fill the pages of a newsletter, It's great to get plan contributions and even better when they come with a little back story about the aircraft being modeled. So what I'm so long windedly saying is take enjoyment not only from designing and building your very own unique dimer, but also from sharing it and truly making it part of the FAC landscape of great designs.

Steve


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 05, 2016, 06:14:19 PM
Ratz, thanks for fixing the link.  HOWEVER...

I highly recommend that you use the following link instead:

http://www.flyingacesclub.com/FACrules3.html


This takes you to the FAC webpage where you can click on the link to download / view the FAC rulebook.

The reason you want to do this is because if I have to edit the rule book for any reason, I give the revised version a new file name. That new file name is reflected in the HTML code that viewers use to access the file, and the old link won't work.

Let's say I create an edited version called "stupidFACrules.pdf." You wouldn't necessarily know I had done this.  If your link doesn't point to the new file with the new name, you are not going to be able to view the file.

Therefore, the following is the ONLY link I recommend posting for access to the FAC rulebook, and is the link that you should add to your bookmarks if you use bookmarks:

http://www.flyingacesclub.com/FACrules3.html

Cheers,

Dave



If "Neo" and "Pseudo" are the same thing (I don't see "Neo" in the FAC Rule book)

I'm no lawyer, but looking at the FAC Rules (VII-1.0 BASIC RULES, Page 13)*

"C. When a Pseudo plan is created, the plan size is limited to one sheet of 11 X 17 inch paper plus one 8.5” X 11”parts page with engineering and details in the spirit of the original era.
 1. Pseudo Dime plans must appear in a recognized publication to be approved as an Official Dimer for FAC events."

I would say, yes, the plan must be published. Now, how they define "recognized publication" I don't have a clue (is the Hip Pocket's Plan Gallery a "recognized publication"?)

http://www.flyingacesclub.com/1617rulesv1b.pdf


Ratz Edit: fixed link




Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Ace Dugan on March 05, 2016, 07:30:37 PM



How does it kill creativity?  Just curious.

Dm

[/quote]

Drawing plans for publication is a much more arduous task because it requires much more detail, correctness of the plan, and responsibility.  Most of us do not think of ourselves as designers and lack drafting skills.  We can do wings and tail surfaces easily, but may be at a loss perfectly drawing up the fuselage and need a little "trial and error" room.  Sometimes we just want to model a particular airplane with not too much fuss.  Not for everyone, but for me and it is dime scale after all...

Jr


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Indoorflyer on March 05, 2016, 08:44:14 PM
Well this whole discussion just reinforces why I have never re-upped (had a 1 year subscription long ago) with the FAC.  I have plenty of fun flying my own stuff and quite frankly don't need the bull5hit of someone else on the other end of the country telling me something is or isn't "legal," based on the current whims of an arbitrary rulebook... ::)

I did submit some material at the time, which was never "published", or even acknowledged.

End of rant.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: DHfan on March 05, 2016, 11:56:40 PM
It sound like the FAC rule goal is to make contests run better by reviewing a new dimer design before it shows up at a contest, which makes a lot of sense.
The two questions that then come up are
A) Why is publishing the criteria?
   This means there is an implied board of dime scale reviewers, the "rag" editors.  Which begs the question is it the rag or the editor that is "accepted"?   I suspect that being an FAC CD is not a requirement to be the editor of a newsletter, (although this may often be the case).  In which case being published does not really mean a design gets reviewed against Dimer rules (FAC's goal), but does get spread to the world (the loyal opposition's gripe). 

It seems that if one were a good enough designer to come up with a competitive new design one should get at least one meet to have an exclusive on that design as "payment". 

B)  There are unwritten rules: 
    1) You need to know a editor willing to publish your design (and still risk it not meeting the interpretation of the dimer rule by a CD), which may have much more to do with a bunch of other reason than the legality of your design.
    2) The rules are not clear enough to define what makes a design a dimer. If those minor deviations from the dimer intent are so minor, why enforce them?  If they are being enforced, they are not so minor, and should be identified in the rules. 

My take is the design requirements need to be identified in the rules.  Being direct and clear about those keeps everything simple.  If a design needs approval, then do it with a review committee or the like, not an implied individual.   That is no more work than is being done with the current system.

That counts as more than 2 cents.  Maybe even a whole bit.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 06, 2016, 07:31:31 AM
Thanks everyone for weighing in and I take it to heart in what I should do. I'll try again on this approach and try to publish something the way you guys do...in the meantime, I'll build the model I intend on publishing and see if it flies and go from there. Thanks again.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 06, 2016, 06:13:45 PM
Thanks everyone for weighing in and I take it to heart in what I should do. I'll try again on this approach and try to publish something the way you guys do...in the meantime, I'll build the model I intend on publishing and see if it flies and go from there. Thanks again.

I look forward to seeing your designs, isismk2!

Cheers,

Dave


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 06, 2016, 06:31:18 PM



How does it kill creativity?  Just curious.

Dm


Drawing plans for publication is a much more arduous task because it requires much more detail, correctness of the plan, and responsibility.  Most of us do not think of ourselves as designers and lack drafting skills.  We can do wings and tail surfaces easily, but may be at a loss perfectly drawing up the fuselage and need a little "trial and error" room.  Sometimes we just want to model a particular airplane with not too much fuss.  Not for everyone, but for me and it is dime scale after all...

Jr
[/quote]


Fair enough!  I guess the only thing I could say to that is that there are a LOT of truly awful, "legitimate" (as in 1930's era) Dime Scale plans out there. Most guys are well versed in making things work.

If I may---you might consider building your models a tad larger-over 17"- and entering them in FAC Simplified Scale.  This event was designed with guys like you in mind--minimal hassle, build a scale model, fly it. And by 'scale', we mean that if it looks even vaguely like the aircraft it means to represent, you're good to go... 


Cheers,

Dave







Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 06, 2016, 06:42:04 PM
Well this whole discussion just reinforces why I have never re-upped (had a 1 year subscription long ago) with the FAC.  I have plenty of fun flying my own stuff and quite frankly don't need the bull5hit of someone else on the other end of the country telling me something is or isn't "legal," based on the current whims of an arbitrary rulebook... ::)

I did submit some material at the time, which was never "published", or even acknowledged.

End of rant.


Sorry you had a bad experience with the FAC, IndoorFlyer.

FWIW, you can be a member of the FAC and still fly whatever you darn well please. We're not even remotely interested in legislating your fun.  If you want to COMPETE in FAC events, however, in particular at the FAC Nats or Non Nats, then you need to mind the rulebook. No different than any other contest.

As for the rule book being "arbitrary"...I would argue just the opposite. It's quite specific, and there is not a rule in there that has not been considered, combed and groomed to a fare-thee-well.  Despite this, it STILL is not perfect. Darn! Maybe next year!

Cheers,

Dave 
 
 


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 06, 2016, 11:08:32 PM
This has been a sane back and forth over the FAC rules, changes, etc. and I've enjoyed it. Yes, some times it does put one off flying FAC and many have opted out but there is enough events to go around to make it worth the trip to Geneseo to fly, mingle and have fun. It is not for everyone nor should it be...now if we could just get the powers-to-be to allow folding props for models that HAD them, then all will be right in the world of free flight. Another question would be : what happens when we lose the Geneseo field and I'm sure that day will come?


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: SBlanchard on March 07, 2016, 09:17:45 AM
I don't see that anyone has mentioned this yet but one of the rules that has been there since the beginning is:

E. Model and plan must be presented to the CD prior to first flight for static pass/fail judging and awarding of bonus points. (taken directly from the latest FAC rules)

So if you were going to fly your new dimer in competition you still need to have an approvable plan.

In response to the "FAC bull5hit" comment: Without rules someone could hit a single and run straight to third and be in scoring position. Someone could just shove the guy defending the basket to get him out of the way to let his teammate score. Without rules why bother showing up at the contest when you could just call in your times from your couch and win the Kanone? Without rules you can't have competitions and for some people the competition is fun. The rules are only "bull5shit" when they make no sense and these rules for the most part make sense. Like Dave said they're not perfect but they get reviewed and updated as thought needed.

Steve


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 07, 2016, 01:06:51 PM
I take your point about rules SBlanchard, and try to live by them...and I'm perfectly happy submitting plans for publication with anyone to be able to fly it...my last point was something that has been talked about for it seems likes forever : models from pre 1946 that have folding props SHOULD have folding props...if you can't make one, okay, use a free-wheeler instead...or maybe FAC should stop holding events for OT Rubber Stick and Fuselage and be done with it...I'm still mystified Embryo Endurance is still offered as a FAC event...but wait...it was offered by the founding fathers so it's okay...catch my drift?...and like someone said awhile ago, if you don't like the rules, you can take you ball and go home and that would be a good way of lessening the turnouts as well...and that's a good thing?


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: edgemitchell on March 07, 2016, 08:30:55 PM
I take your point about rules SBlanchard, and try to live by them...and I'm perfectly happy submitting plans for publication with anyone to be able to fly it...my last point was something that has been talked about for it seems likes forever : models from pre 1946 that have folding props SHOULD have folding props...if you can't make one, okay, use a free-wheeler instead...or maybe FAC should stop holding events for OT Rubber Stick and Fuselage and be done with it...I'm still mystified Embryo Endurance is still offered as a FAC event...but wait...it was offered by the founding fathers so it's okay...catch my drift?...and like someone said awhile ago, if you don't like the rules, you can take you ball and go home and that would be a good way of lessening the turnouts as well...and that's a good thing?

Isismk2, you should know that there are a significant number of the FAC "powers that be" who would be all too happy to say sayonara to OT Rubber Stick / Fuselage.  They point to the fact that the FAC was, in its formative years, primarily a scale modeling organization.  I rather like non scale models, but I could point to the fact, unhappy but true, that the guys who mostly fly the non-scale events rarely assume any significant volunteer duties at the Nats / Non Nats, Dan Driscoll being a notable exception. In any event, the remaining significant "powers that be"---clearly still a majority, if a slim one--feel like the FAC should indeed try to offer something for everyone.  Yes, we persist in retaining those infuriating rules like "no folding props" because that was what Dave Stott, Bob Thompson and Lin Reichel decreed, else the FAC be seen as just another extension of SAM; and if this is not an organization that tries to uphold its traditions, I don't know WHAT it is. The Founding Fathers are viewed with no small degree of reverence within the FAC community.   


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 07, 2016, 09:58:48 PM
Well said Edge...I take your point and understand where the FAC is coming from and I wouldn't complain if you dropped the duration events as that would make The FAC more consistent with the original concept. I really do hope you drop the duration events and stop offering a bastardized version of duration because I guess I'm a purist when it comes to free fight...or maybe even a Luddite.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: modler on March 08, 2016, 08:28:07 AM
FWIW I think FAC should retain the duration events. They allow for entry-level flyers such as myself to compete with a chance to do well without yet having the skills to be competitive in scale catagories.

Bill.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 08, 2016, 09:02:44 AM
The idea is to keep flying free flight and enjoying whatever you do


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: SBlanchard on March 08, 2016, 12:18:10 PM
Just a note, Embryo was not just offered by the founding fathers it was created by Dave Stott. Although steeped in scale modeling and an attempt to break from the AMA rules of old, the FAC was about the feel and spirit of the old rags that were published back in the day with a heavy lean towards FUN FUN FUN. That's where it started and that's where I believe it still stands. Even the purists can have fun. By the way, I've been fly fishing for about 25 years and some of those guys are crazy purists. I'm looked down upon by some because I fish subsurface with nymph patterns. You got nothing on them! So, everybody has their thing and there is a place for everybody. Even in the FAC.

Steve


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 08, 2016, 12:45:19 PM
I agree Steve!!!...I fish a 7 1/2 ft. bamboo I built myself, both dry and wet (Elk Hair Caddis, Pheasant Tail Nymph, Gold-Ribbed Hare's Ear, Coppernob Nymph, Adams)
and enjoy it. I also fly electric, glider and rubber and love every minute of it...I think FAC should continue doing what they are doing and make whatever rules they choose to make. They do ask the members their opinion and it is factored in. Majority Rules as it should. Can't ask for anymore than that but it doesn't mean I've got to STFU and not speak my mind.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: SBlanchard on March 08, 2016, 01:32:39 PM
All minds are welcome! I think it's healthy to have these discussions. I'm just glad there are level headed individuals such as Dave Mitchell and the rest to sort it all out. Let's not forget to thank them for not making us do it!

Steve


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 08, 2016, 05:39:57 PM
Again I agree...discourse is key to making this thing great...Free Flight Forever...thanx Dave M....


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Bingo Fuel on March 09, 2016, 07:12:56 PM
I am wondering why a published 16" plan from a 1932 M.A.N. of a scale model is not allowed in Dime Scale because it is not on a 11" x 17"piece of paper?  At a FAC contest I showed the plan to the officials and was told to redraw it to that size sheet of paper.  Why the crazy 11 X 17 rule? So I do not fly in competition in Dime.  I am not going to all that drawing trouble to make some stupid rule happy.  Bingo


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: scrubs on March 10, 2016, 09:53:59 AM
I guess the drawback with publishing is building something new and showing up with something nobody else has?

bill


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on March 10, 2016, 01:26:35 PM
Ya...for those who know me have realized by now I like to build different stuff because I'm tired of seeing the same designs and models year after year...and for what?...more kanones? Glory?...winning does make you more focused (and that's a good thing) and you build better to fly better but just to be out there, actually feeling a thermal come through, watching it circling high over head and sometimes watching it play with Swallows, will always bring me back no matter what place I attain in a contest...designing and publishing is something not everyone can do and that's okay too...lots of room in this hobby for all kinds of flyers....


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: applehoney on March 10, 2016, 02:07:37 PM
Well said !


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: lincoln on September 15, 2016, 01:16:53 PM
I'm going against my better judgement and commenting on this. Comments on this have got me in trouble in the past.

Just to establish my "right" to comment, I'm the guy who put together the index to the FAC news that shows up at their site and at RC Groups. I hope to do more issues but there are a whole bunch of issues in there already. I hope to get back into the project sometime and complete it.

1. I recognize that a whole lot of work has gone into the rules over the years. However, I find parts of the rules more and more opaque with time. It's like there should be an accompanying publication called "unwritten rules" or "clues to the official FAC mindset". On the other hand, maybe this is just nostalgia on my part. Or an allergy to the phrase "design considerations". Might I suggest that we try out the rules on newbies or laypeople, to check if they're comprehensible?

2. FAC has a de facto monopoly on rubber scale competition. I think that brings with it a responsibility to be accomodating. For instance, in Europe there's a highly developed art of making rubber scale models out of foam. Some of these models are amazing.
http://www.ffscale.co.uk/nats2016/firefly_jv.jpg
the little one is foam:
http://www.ffscale.co.uk/nats2016/wyverns.jpg
I have seen several impressive foam models from FAC notables and others which never get to fly in competition. One was a Pistachio WW2 fighter that looked quite nice and could do 45 seconds or so, and flew just fine outdoors. I think it was a P-47, not sure after many years. Admittedly, it had an undercambered airfoil, but was still quite the accomplishment.

I think if you transplanted one of those air minded kids from the 1930's, keeping the low budget, you'd see foam models from him, because foam is cheaper and more accessible, while permitting very nice scale (and other) models. The real equivalent of dime scale kits would probably be foam, too, as opposed to $25 and up balsa kits.

3. IMHO, the FAC should figure out if the nostalgia is for the early days of the second FAC (i.e. Thompson and Stott) or for the first FAC, i.e. 1930's. Back in the 1930's, there were a fair number of duration models, including simple ones that kids would fly. So I'd disagree with getting rid of duration or other non-scale models.
http://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=132
http://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=85
http://outerzone.co.uk/plan_details.asp?ID=84
and many more. In our own club, the most popular, or at least one of the most popular events is the Pussycat mass launch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcM3nHCV648
Definitely NOT a 1930's design, but IMHO, in the spirit of the FAC. Or at least the FAC of some years ago.

There were a number plans for models with geared drives and the like in the 1930's, though of course they weren't easy to build. Neither are a lot of the complicated scale jobs we see in the FAC today. However, gears are banned. Or, at least, designs using the full potential of gears.
http://www.hippocketaeronautics.com/hpa_plans/details.php?image_id=768&mode=search
This elaborate model from 1938 used gears and the "Moore drive":
http://modelaircraftplans.synthasite.com/resources/TwinGull-MT0001/TwinGull-MT0001.jpg
I admit that gears were more popular in Europe than in the USA. However, I've seen a Leopard Moth design by, I think, Warner, that had gears. Not sure what year, though.

A friend is at the door, must run.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: skyrocket on September 15, 2016, 10:02:42 PM
I don't know where comment #33 was going but I'd like to know. If you don't want to fly FAC, you don't have to. In my local contests I fly Embryo, Two Bit and the All Sheet jobs we found. I don't agree with the FAC rules on OT Rubber so I don't fly it any more. And I don't care how many kanones I have. Why complain when no one listens? So I have no beef with FAC and they can do what they like and they have a strong following that agrees with them. Cool.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: lincoln on November 08, 2016, 12:39:03 AM
I think my comments just irritate a lot of people and don't change anything. But every once in a while, I forget and write something like post 33. The problem isn't that I don't want to fly FAC, but that I do. Today isn't one of those times, however.


Title: Re: is this true?
Post by: Modelace on November 13, 2016, 05:03:06 AM
I take your point about rules SBlanchard, and try to live by them...and I'm perfectly happy submitting plans for publication with anyone to be able to fly it...my last point was something that has been talked about for it seems likes forever : models from pre 1946 that have folding props SHOULD have folding props...if you can't make one, okay, use a free-wheeler instead...or maybe FAC should stop holding events for OT Rubber Stick and Fuselage and be done with it...I'm still mystified Embryo Endurance is still offered as a FAC event...but wait...it was offered by the founding fathers so it's okay...catch my drift?...and like someone said awhile ago, if you don't like the rules, you can take you ball and go home and that would be a good way of lessening the turnouts as well...and that's a good thing?

Isismk2, you should know that there are a significant number of the FAC "powers that be" who would be all too happy to say sayonara to OT Rubber Stick / Fuselage.  They point to the fact that the FAC was, in its formative years, primarily a scale modeling organization.  I rather like non scale models, but I could point to the fact, unhappy but true, that the guys who mostly fly the non-scale events rarely assume any significant volunteer duties at the Nats / Non Nats, Dan Driscoll being a notable exception. In any event, the remaining significant "powers that be"---clearly still a majority, if a slim one--feel like the FAC should indeed try to offer something for everyone.  Yes, we persist in retaining those infuriating rules like "no folding props" because that was what Dave Stott, Bob Thompson and Lin Reichel decreed, else the FAC be seen as just another extension of SAM; and if this is not an organization that tries to uphold its traditions, I don't know WHAT it is. The Founding Fathers are viewed with no small degree of reverence within the FAC community.   
Edge: You need to know that I flew BOTH scale and duration events at the last Geneseo Nats that I attended as well as judged peanut scale and donated the Lin Reichel trophy (Check it out).
After seeing what one of the "founding fathers" did to Don DeLoach and seeing the fallout resulting in WWII combat rules that are so demanding as to be ridiculous, I have renounced the FAC in it's entirety. There will be no tears from the "powers that be" for that decision, so be it.
The FAC has gone the way of the AMA with the current rules which are poorly written, confusing, frustrating and onerorus.