Logo
Builders' Plan Gallery  |  Hip Pocket Web Site  |  Contact Forum Admin  |  Contact Global Moderator
September 22, 2019, 02:58:52 PM *
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 3996 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #25 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
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #26 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.
Logged
SBlanchard
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 10
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 154



Ignore
« Reply #27 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
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #28 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....
Logged
Bingo Fuel
Silver Member
****

Kudos: 4
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 155



Ignore
« Reply #29 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
Logged
scrubs
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 8
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 501



Ignore
« Reply #30 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
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #31 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....
Logged
applehoney
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 279
Offline Offline

Canada Canada

Posts: 3,156




Ignore
« Reply #32 on: March 10, 2016, 02:07:37 PM »

Well said !
Logged
lincoln
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 31
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,015



Ignore
« Reply #33 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.
Logged
skyrocket
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 28
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 662

Topic starter
nothing hard is ever easy



Ignore
« Reply #34 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.
Logged
lincoln
Titanium Member
*******

Kudos: 31
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 2,015



Ignore
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
Modelace
Gold Member
*****

Kudos: 37
Offline Offline

United States United States

Posts: 765



Ignore
« Reply #36 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.
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!