Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
September 23, 2019, 06:56:23 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: is this true?  (Read 3998 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« 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...
Logged
Mooney
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 30
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 697


Whenever possible, fly with the sun at your back



Ignore
« Reply #1 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. 
Logged
Starduster
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 34
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,343




Ignore
« Reply #2 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

« Last Edit: March 05, 2016, 02:23:27 PM by Ratz » Logged

"We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty..."
modler
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 142


FAC member



Ignore
« Reply #3 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.
Logged

Old model building joke: "Build two identical sides!!!"
Indoorflyer
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 13
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,068




Ignore
« Reply #4 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...
Logged

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

Kudos: 54
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 995


WWW

Ignore
« Reply #5 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
Logged

edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #6 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
Logged
Ace Dugan
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 11
Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 81



Ignore
« Reply #7 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
Logged
edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #8 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
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #9 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
Logged
edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #10 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


Logged
Ace Dugan
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 11
Online Online

United States United States

Posts: 81



Ignore
« Reply #11 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
Logged
Indoorflyer
Platinum Member
******

Kudos: 13
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 1,068




Ignore
« Reply #12 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... Roll Eyes

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

End of rant.
Logged

Make the same mistake on both sides; nobody will notice...
DHfan
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 94



Ignore
« Reply #13 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.
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #14 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.
Logged
edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #15 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
Logged
edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #16 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





Logged
edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #17 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... Roll Eyes

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 
 
 
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #18 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?
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #19 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
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #20 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?
Logged
edgemitchell
Bronze Member
***

Kudos: 6
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 72



Ignore
« Reply #21 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.   
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #22 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.
Logged
modler
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 3
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 142


FAC member



Ignore
« Reply #23 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.
Logged

Old model building joke: "Build two identical sides!!!"
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #24 on: March 08, 2016, 09:02:44 AM »

The idea is to keep flying free flight and enjoying whatever you do
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!