Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
August 22, 2019, 07:50:58 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with email, password and session length
 
Home Help Search Login Register
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: My Peanut Victory  (Read 3236 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
cglynn
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 351



Ignore
« Reply #25 on: August 05, 2014, 11:49:45 AM »

Josh and Dan, you guys nailed it.  Good flying comes down to preparation an ability to adapt to different situations tha arise while flying.  That comes through practice, which comes from dedication. 

In regards to the local expert I cited above; He has been building and flying AMA and FAC models since he was in high school, is very dedicated and very skilled.  He is competitive by nature.  If there is a minimum model weight in a class, he will build right to it.  If there is no minimum, he will build insanely light.  He has worked hard to get to that point.  In terms of his winning discouraging others, he is also very willing to share his techniques, offer advice, and help others. 

I think experts are experts for a reason.  They have put in the time and dedication to get to that point.  If you want to build a model of your favorite WW2 fighter and fly it in competition after just getting it trimmed, fine.  I would hope that person would not expect to win every event he flew, and would not criticize those that have built models designed to perform to the max, for not having fun.

Okay, rant over.  George, sorry to have deteriorated your thread into discussion about the limits in competitive flying.  Congrats again on great performance.

Chris
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #26 on: August 05, 2014, 12:30:41 PM »

Hey Josh,

Careful what "challenges" you bring up when you speak about wing fillets. If I am thinking of the correct incident with regard to Don's model, you'd be foolish to comment about the challenger. When the founding father Dave Stott, the man who wrote the rules says he has an issue with what is clearly a violation of the rules, you do just as Don did and bow out gracefully. It would then be up to the CD or the person running that event at the time to be sure all others conformed to those rules. Do you really believe that Dave Stott was being childish in that instance? If Dave, or should I say when Dave had pointed out things that should keep me out of the competition I either fixed them or just stepped aside knowing I was wrong. I didn't get upset because it was for the same fun you say you are having. But how can you be having fun if you are this upset about following the rules? The competition drives us to be better than we were the day before. It shouldn't drive us crazy. I agree with everyone being as good as they can but you have to follow the rules that were made in order for everyone to have fun. This way no one feels cheated.

By the way, I saw George's Pegna flying in Geneseo and it was something else.

Steve
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 94
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,720


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #27 on: August 05, 2014, 01:25:03 PM »

Steve, the issue I have is that Don's airplane had already competed in a multitude of contests without incident because the rules said absolutely nothing about wing fillets. There was no obvious violation of the rules anymore than there was for the P-51's which were flying around sans fillets. The only rule other than armament and scale fuselage cross sections was the ethereal 45 static point margin. Don's and my shared concern was that rules not even found in the book were being imposed upon one participant while not being imposed upon another. I think it's equally important to point out that in the same contest, Chris Starleaf entered an F-82 in Rubber Scale with not even an attempt at fillets and got pretty close to maximum static points.

When the Maxecuters took over management of the rules, things improved greatly, since we now have a spelled out standard for what is and is not required on mass launch models. And it works so long as it is enforced equally.

As a final note, I don't care who raises the complaint, no matter how well respected they might be, if they're enforcing their rule unfairly, it's wrong. The proper course of action was to change the rules, not fuss at Don for omitting a relatively minor feature that had no impact upon his model's performance.
Logged
Starduster
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,333




Ignore
« Reply #28 on: August 05, 2014, 01:31:49 PM »

Forget all that.

I do have one serious question:

Maxout said:

"About 10 years ago, several prominent FAC members put together a well formed proposal for a no holds barred rubber scale event in which there would be no materials limitations. It had excellent support from a large number of participants, and was handed off to Ross Mayo, who threw it in the trash with the remark that composite models are in violation of the FAC purpose statement."

My question is:

If there was support for this event, why didn't the guys just get together and fly it? Why did there have to be an "official" event, with "official" rules?

Everybody puts 5 bucks in a hat and winner take all. Golfers do this sort of thing all of the time. Serious cyclists will have "Town Line Races" during rides just for fun.

And, yes, this is a serious question. Is there something in the rules that prohibit this?
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 02:33:16 PM by Iceman1007 » Logged

"We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty..."
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 278
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,155




Ignore
« Reply #29 on: August 05, 2014, 02:38:30 PM »

> the first rule in the book goes:

Bill - my attempted  'entry' was just for laughs - but that was over 40 years ago and I don't think SMAE FF scale rules were as exhaustively detailed as nwadays.  I still have a set of 1994 BMFA rules on the shelf (why, I wonder?) and scale not mentioned in them at all.

Outa here ....
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 94
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,720


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #30 on: August 05, 2014, 02:51:55 PM »

If there was support for this event, why didn't the guys just get together and fly it? Why did there have to be an "official" event, with "official" rules?

And, yes, this is a serious question. Is there something in the rules that prohibit this?

It deserves a serious answer, trouble is I don't really have one. I was on the sidelines, just watching to see what would happen. It was purely a foam scale event, which was of zero interest to me at the time other than the concept of seeing new technology in scale models. When Ross nixed it in such an ice cold manner, it seemed to take the wind out of everyone's sails. Part of the reason could have to do with the difficulty of making a judged scale model. If there's no fame and glory, it's really hard to work up the motivation, especially when it involves learning a long list of new building skills in the process. I personally have a competitive edge to be gained from learning foam for HLG/CLG, and even that hasn't been enough motivation to learn it--it's messy, potentially expensive (bagged finish, etc), and has a steep learning curve.

One of the hard lessons of aeromodelling is that unless you're in an event where there is financial gain to be had, it is virtually impossible to interest enough people to run an event outside the auspices of a modeling association. That's why F1D has remained at the whim of the Eastern Bloc, seeing as how we despise the rules but keep flying F1D.
Logged
danberry
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 17
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 952



Ignore
« Reply #31 on: August 05, 2014, 03:02:36 PM »

Hey Josh,

Careful what "challenges" you bring up when you speak about wing fillets. If I am thinking of the correct incident with regard to Don's model, you'd be foolish to comment about the challenger. When the founding father Dave Stott, the man who wrote the rules says he has an issue with what is clearly a violation of the rules, you do just as Don did and bow out gracefully. It would then be up to the CD or the person running that event at the time to be sure all others conformed to those rules. Do you really believe that Dave Stott was being childish in that instance? If Dave, or should I say when Dave had pointed out things that should keep me out of the competition I either fixed them or just stepped aside knowing I was wrong. I didn't get upset because it was for the same fun you say you are having. But how can you be having fun if you are this upset about following the rules? The competition drives us to be better than we were the day before. It shouldn't drive us crazy. I agree with everyone being as good as they can but you have to follow the rules that were made in order for everyone to have fun. This way no one feels cheated.

By the way, I saw George's Pegna flying in Geneseo and it was something else.

Steve

This was a crappy move. Don's plane met the requirements for the event. Don is a gentleman and walked away. I wouldn't have..........
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #32 on: August 05, 2014, 03:10:18 PM »

Josh,

I am less concerned that you bring up the fact that one ship was penalized over the rest, because you are correct that the rules apply to all, it's more the way you portray the person(s) involved. You insist on making it sound as if Dave was calling Don out and acting "childish" when in truth he was asked by the person running the event if he had an issue with any of the airplanes in the line and right there was Don with his fillet-less airplane and he said he doesn't have fillets. It wasn't his call to pull him from the line or make hm not fly it in the event. The CD could have handled it any way he wished. I believe Don is a good guy and a great competitor. He builds beautiful models and I've seen fillets on his ships. I know for a fact that he and Dave corresponded after that and all was good.

By the way, you cannot be missing the Fillets and still get the 45 points seeing how there is no points given for workmanship included in that number.

The fact is that when the mass launch events were created it was for you to fly your scale ships in. Not to fly a just short of perfect scale model so it flies better. Scale. Wing fillets as you pointed out with Chris Starleaf's F-82 should be there if the scale ship had it. The only provisions in the rules for not having scale details on a ship were to minimize damage such as Pitot tubes and control wires that could easily be damaged upon landing. The choice to have those items on the plane is just that, a choice. Because you have people not robots deciding scale points you will have discrepancies. Some guys love some people's work and can't see the errors. Some people have such character in their builds that it overtakes the viewer of the model. You said Chris got near perfect scale scores. Maybe the missing fillets was what made it only "near" perfect. Chris is very a accomplished builder in every way. His stuff simply doesn't suck. Hard to really penalize near perfect other than near perfect scores. It may have been a different score at a different contest and I'll bet Chris would have been just as happy to fly it.

My point is (I actually have one) the "Spirit" of the FAC is a real thing and it is alive. It's just not alive in everyone, mostly because of lack of exposure to it. Pay attention to those who have received the Founding Fathers award. See what they have accomplished. Some people can't see their accomplishments because it's not measured in wins, not to say that some big winners haven't received this award. It's truly awarded to those to have been viewed to embody the Spirit of the FAC. Each recipient was chosen for a different reason but always for the same purpose. It's to help perpetuate what Dave and Bob started 40 years ago. If it is seen in an individual during a contest, they are considered for the Honor. And it should be viewed as such.

I build far from perfect models and am an OK flier. I have had some of the best times of my life on those fields and I wouldn't trade them for anything. I've been called out for my mistakes and lovingly embarrassed by some of the best friends I've ever had. It's only made me improve on those things that were previously lacking. It's all good. Just build what you like to the standards you set for yourself and enjoy it regardless of all of the petty stuff. If you take it or yourself to seriously then it becomes a job.

Steve
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #33 on: August 05, 2014, 03:14:05 PM »

Dan,

I am assuming you are speaking of what happened on the field. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you could have handled it anyway you wished. I'm sure no one would have judged you for it. I would have have followed suit with Don, and have. I agree that Don was a gentleman and I wouldn't want to be viewed as less.

Steve
Logged
ffkiwi
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 20
Offline Offline

New Zealand New Zealand

Posts: 500



Ignore
« Reply #34 on: August 05, 2014, 03:27:41 PM »

Just in case anyone wants to have a laugh at those organising comps in the UK, or "push the envelope", the first rule in the book goes:
"A scale model aircraft shall be a reduced scale reproduction of a full size aircraft. The
full size aircraft modelled must have flown and models of pilotless aircraft or drones are
not permitted."


And what Bill has written above is simple, clear and unequivocal....

ChrisM
'ffkiwi'
Logged
Starduster
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,333




Ignore
« Reply #35 on: August 05, 2014, 03:28:02 PM »

.. unless you're in an event where there is financial gain to be had, it is virtually impossible to interest enough people to run an event outside the auspices of a modeling association. That's why F1D has remained at the whim of the Eastern Bloc, seeing as how we despise the rules but keep flying F1D.

I would love to see (and fly in) a true "Dawn Unlimited" event.

Everybody puts 5 bucks in a hat. Everybody has to launch during a 15 minute window. (say, 6:00 am to 6:15 am).

No limit on airplane, design or power. Fly what you brought. You want to fly your Texaco Old Timer? Go for it. You want to fly your F1D? Cool.

Only one rule: The person timing the flight has to stay where he/she is. Binoculars, OK, but they can't chase with you.

Longest flight wins the pot.

We really find out who has the biggest cojones. (and,yes, that was an intentional nod to FAC)

(OK, I just thought of one more rule: It has to be a heavier-than-air aircraft)

 
« Last Edit: August 05, 2014, 03:50:47 PM by Iceman1007 » Logged

"We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty..."
Mooney
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 697


Whenever possible, fly with the sun at your back



Ignore
« Reply #36 on: August 05, 2014, 09:21:12 PM »

Re:Don's model and Dave Stott, some context is important.  Previously, at Geneseo meets contestants had to meet a minimal scale criteria for mass launch models to qualify.  This was loosely enforced. In fact, enforced is a word that implies more action than what was being done.   As a result, guys were flying dime-like ghost ships.  I personally witnessed WW2 ML flown with dimers in the group.  A no no. This was not the intent of the event.  Nor was it what Don was doing.  It was important to get a handle on the matter. 
I feel like the Maxecuters created a fair method to address the issue and models sans rigging, guns or fillets don't get in. I can't speak for Don or Dave, but can only say that I was there and felt (imho) that it was handled poorly.  Don was an ace and conducted himself respectfully and in a dignified manner.  I like to think Dave meant well.
It was a bummer for me because Dave is a founder of FAC and anytime I spoke to him he commented on how much fun I seemed to be having.  Don returned to clean up since then...guess it all worked out. Smiley
People should know that FAC meets are typically loose and fun, the internet tends to make them out as strict unhappy affairs attended by fanatical competitors.  Not so, see for yourself, you will be very happy you did.
It really is a merry band of brothers ...and sisters .
Logged
cglynn
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 351



Ignore
« Reply #37 on: August 05, 2014, 11:01:51 PM »

With a serious portion of this thread about having fun at FAC events, I question how much fun it is to have a model tossed for not having guns, rigging, and/or wing fillets.  I know you want to build as close to scale as possible, but I for one would be honestly a bit hurt if I built a great P51, traveled to NY to fly it in competition, and then had it tossed for not having guns built into it.  Isn't that what scale points are for?  Or is it only for mass launches that models get tossed based on lack of scale features?  Forgive my ignorance of the rules.  I am new to this FAC stuff, and honestly rarely build scale models for competition, so my understanding of the rules cited here may be lacking.  Just looking to learn at this point.

Thanks
Chris
Logged
Ex Member
Guest

« Reply #38 on: August 06, 2014, 02:10:43 AM »

I have been reading this from afar with some interest, and whilst i don't want to interfere with a competition that i probably would never enter I did wonder why someone would be barred because of a scale detail, when I assume there would be a static element to the competition.  Fine enter your ghost ship or dime, but get hammered on the static points?

We too have similar sometimes heated debates on rules etc, but as Mooney said when you get there it is good fun and worth doing....

Andrew

Edit: Spelling Mooney right!
« Last Edit: August 06, 2014, 02:54:54 AM by Andrew Darby » Logged
ffscale
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 23
Offline Offline

United Kingdom United Kingdom

Posts: 211



Ignore
« Reply #39 on: August 06, 2014, 06:27:02 AM »

Just to clarify - the minimum requirements discussed here are for mass launch events, not the judged scale events.  As Andrew says, for the judged scale classes you are welcome to enter any scale model, but it will take a hit on the static marks if the details are missing.

This year everyone was encouraged to get their mass launch models checked out at the hotel on Wednesday afternoon.  This gave anybody with a non-compliant model time to add the missing details before the event was flown, and saved any embarrassing disqualifications on the field.

Mike S
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 94
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,720


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #40 on: August 06, 2014, 07:05:42 AM »

This gave anybody with a non-compliant model time to add the missing details before the event was flown, and saved any embarrassing disqualifications on the field.

While it's a nice thought, I do have to ask the question of why people are having so much trouble qualifying when the "Pre Launch Checklist" is so clearly laid out. It's not like that ambiguous 45 point thing--it's really, really black and white about stuff (which is awesome, IMO).

Let me be clear about my positions on this--while I do have serious issues with the way some FAC stuff gets done, the recent rules changes have all been excellent. Embryo is at last judged based on a 20 second minimum so it's like all the other classes instead of basically any flight no matter how short is official (I had a 2 second official flight once!  Shocked ); we have dimescale/pseudo combined and we have old-time/simplified scale combined (that's two fewer events than previous, which is a good thing); old-time cabin and stick are clear, simple, and allow 100% of pre 1946 non-scale, enclosed fuselage models to be eligible; and we have a very clear set of rules for mass launches. I think all of this is excellent, as it gives us clear, sensible rules, and they're fairly consistent in writing style, too. Up until this point, you could read the rulebook and easily tell that each event, and even parts of a single event, were written by different people, which made it extremely verbose and confusing.

Now if we can just get all of the events run in a polite manner--somewhere on youtube there is a video of a combat mass launch in the 2008-2010 time frame in which the event director is literally screaming orders and berating mechanics for not complying with his orders instantly (something that is very hard to do with 40+ people in very close proximity). There is absolutely no excuse for such obnoxious behavior, and I've seen it on several occasions, although that's probably the worst example I've ever heard of, with previous USIC personnel being a close second.
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #41 on: August 06, 2014, 12:21:45 PM »

I agree with Josh about the the clear, concise way the rules were laid out by Dave Mitchell and the like. The only comments I have is that Pseudo and dime were always run together at our local contests. I don't believe this was a specific rule that they needed to be run separate, just a choice on the part of the CD. As far as Simplified Scale and Old time being combined you are not really saving an event because Simplified Scale never existed until a couple of years ago. Truth be told there are many that feel it should never have existed. Can't please everyone. Any way, I'm glad to see this thread has evolved into something better than where it was going and I agree completely with Mooney about the fact that FAC events, even with the drama, are mostly a bunch of fun with a bunch of great people. Can't wait to get yelled at at Geneseo again next year!

Steve
Logged
Maxout
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 94
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,720


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #42 on: August 06, 2014, 02:00:20 PM »

Steve,

 Pseudo and Dime were originally combined, but somewhere around 2007-2008 they were separated. A lot of clubs opted to combine them as is often done and seems to pass muster in general (such as combining Thompson, Greve, Bendix, and Goodyear/Formula).

 Simplified scale seems to have been born out of the kit/plan scale or whatever it was that was for models between 16 and I think 20" span. Around the time that one was finally allowed to die the death it deserved, simplified scale was produced (much better event) and then combined with old time scale. Net result is that there was the removal of one more event from the rulebook.

 Jumbo scale was briefly dropped, but I see that it's back up, probably for the sole purpose of having another judged event. I personally think that Jumbo and Giant should be combined, as there isn't much to be gained from having them separate. Giants fly slightly longer than Jumbos and are damaged more easily...that's about the only difference I can see. I'd have still built the Goose at 52" even if there weren't a differentiator. It's better at that size, and practically unflyable as a sub-36" model (I say that in theory, having not tested it).

 The one that really bugged me was when they imposed that 36" span limit on WWI and WWII models. Glad to see that didn't stay for long.

 By the way, we haven't mentioned that GA Civ and Combat were finally combined, too. A move that was long overdue. I think the same should be done with Modern Civ and Military.

 Have we ever gotten a definitive answer to what "For civil aircraft produced post-WWII, and post-WWII military high-wing cabin aircraft" means? I've seen more interpretations for that one than anything you could imagine. One contest announcement was particularly memorable--something to the effect that only factory-build aircraft were eligible...so all the prototypes are legal, but mass production kit planes aren't. Or are they? Or...? And then what is the definition of production? We fly Found 100's in the event, always have, and only 3 of those were made. Roll Eyes Or does "produced" merely mean it was built and flew? In which case Lacey's are eligible (which I honestly don't mind--I've not seen them to have the unfair advantage that is so often claimed).

 Mind you, I'm not fussing, but it has caused a lot of confusion. Given that he's been so good at making sure things like this get fixed, I should probably contact Dave Mitchell to see if something can be made to happen.
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #43 on: August 06, 2014, 02:27:17 PM »

Josh,

I must have missed the combined dime and pseudo moment in FAC history (I wasn't a regular Nats attendant) but I have to say, the best part about FAC competition is that the keepers of the rules and such don't try and over-impose themselves on the local contests yet set a fair list of how-to rules in place. At the size that the FAC has grown to since it's beginning it will always be a challenge to make everyone happy. Sometimes it's best to leave well enough alone and let the rules or events play out for a while instead continually introducing adjustments to the rules.

Steve
Logged
FLYACE1946
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 26
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,538




Ignore
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2015, 11:15:38 AM »

Seems like it may be time for a seperate catagory aimed at just homebuilt aircraft. Lacy's are not the only ones built for EAA flyin's. Look for a Wittman Tailwind, Rutan Var Eze, etc Also Bede 4,5,6,7 and so many others like the Eaves Cougar, The list could be much longer.My peanut Mooney Mite will fly in Modern Civil since it went into production before the move from Kansas to Texas by Al Mooney.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   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!