Beyond 2004

This is the thread to aid in development of new ideas and classes. Post working rules and gather feedback!

Moderator: hbartel

Feathers
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: USA

Post by Feathers »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Nobody is going to make the argument that Limited-B isn’t a recipe for good fun.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm pretty sure that's what this is all supposed to be about...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In the long run, the RCCA needs to have and promote exactly one class for the purpose of bringing new pilots into the sport of combat. If you’ve got two limited classes such that you’ve got one group of guys flying one class here, and another group flying a second class down the road, then the RCCA has accomplished nothing more than clubs are already doing on their own.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I've got news for you. The entry of a limited class using the provisional system has already divided many areas in just the manner you describe. In fact, we don't even have a group of guys flying one class here and one there- in some places we have one group on one side of the field and another on the other. We have meets with SSC in the morning and Open B in the afternoon requiring folks who want to fly for the day to bring more planes with them than ever before. Or, if they chose to fly one class, they drive 6-10 hours for 20-25 minutes of combat. Many decide to not attend at all.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Coming up with a class that is going to advance RC Combat and the RCCA as a whole is something completely different.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Kinda like the difference between arguing why one idea isn't going to work without providing an alternative? We got it; you don't like the idea of a Limited B class. I happen to think that the idea of being able to use the same engine in an open, scale, and limited event is appealing. I suspect that the logic of having a limited class that allows an easy progression to the most popular open class will be appreciated by many new pilots.

Scott, we could argue this for days but frankly I'm tired of it. When the concept was suggested all we heard was "talk is cheap", when we bought props and put on streamers and organized demos we still heard "talk is cheap", now that more and more folks are saying that they're enjoying the idea we hear "it's not vision."

I guess I'm one to take a "shot in the dark." I'd rather that than sitting in it.


Tim Feathers
MLaBoyteaux
Posts: 434
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:43 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by MLaBoyteaux »

Last weekend I went scuba diving in a local lake here in Dallas. Last evening I flew up to 8500' and watched the sun slowly slip below the horizon and practiced some night take-offs and landings. Two hobbies I also enjoy but have reduced participation in because I've focused on flying RC combat. There are hobbies other than RC combat.

I've spent a fair amount of time over the last 3 days discussing the future of RC combat and how we can increase participation with other members. I sat down this morning with the intent of writing a long disertation on my vision of the RCCA beyond 2004, which is the focus of this thread. After reading the latest posts though, I've grown weary of the constant class bashing that has spilled over onto EVERY THREAD ON THE FORUM. I, for one, have had enough. Where do I see the future of the RCCA beyond 2004? Frankly, it's not worth having my ideas ripped up in public and being pounced on by a few vocal nay-sayers. I'll help to support and implement our ideas locally because this is where I fly.



Mark LaBoyteaux
Ft. Worth, Texas
Image
zeek
Posts: 283
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2001 11:40 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by zeek »

Perhaps, rather than taking aim at various classes and rules, we should be taking a slightly different tack.

I have been involved in many sporting and professional organizations over the years and it has been my experience that new members are attracted initially be the shared activity but are retained by shared experience. That is, they may like the look of combat but if they don't "fit in" or feel inadequate in any way they are less likely to carry on. This is often a function of the people they meet in their chosen activity.

Instead of debating the relative merits of any given class, how about finding new ways to relate to each other and the new guys coming along? If you grab a new guy, take him under your wing, spend time with him flying/buildng he will feel a part of the whole experience. He will feel included in the wider scheme of things, expand to know all your flying buddies and be more likely to want to spend his money/time pursuing the sport.

Perhaps a focus on the man/woman, rather than the machine? Has the RCCA or any of the clubs ever had a mentoring program or follow up scheme designed to keep the recruits interested and on track?



zeek
www.rccombatwa.com

Email SPADWORX@iprimus.com.au Your Australian combat connection!
Lou Melancon
Posts: 2389
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2001 5:16 pm
Contact:

Post by Lou Melancon »

I took three days of vacation and didn't take the computer with me. This has been a good break from all the discussions, long enough to examine some of things that are working and not working and also trying to put myself into the shoes on folks on the outside looking in.

Some folks fly one event and some fly multiple. I think most new fliers will fly one event. The more of it they get to fly the better. In Atlanta, this year, and last the majority of our contests were one day, and one event. So we didn't have to split the time between two classes. We could fly one all day long.

I think this has simplified our building time, our equipment selection, and consolidated our interests.

In areas where folks fit two events into one day there is less flying time for those who only fly one event, and twice as much equipment needed for those who fly two.

I believe that one day contests will be in the majority and I think that flying one event will probably do a lot to foster and keep interest going.

So pick the event that works in your area and promote it to the max. That is what we have done in Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee and it is working well.

Lou Melancon
Alpharetta, Georgia
Bob Leone
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 11:56 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bob Leone »

This weekend I flew with Cajun and David, they were flying 25 sized planes with mufflers and 9x4 props. I was flying my Cobra with a 15 on it. We had a blast; nobody was out running anyone else. So I thought it would be a good idea to have 3 classes, a slow class a fast class and a scale class. Keep it simple.

Slow class around 55 MPH, it don’t matter if it is 15 or 25 size as long as your not a considerably faster than everyone else. Weight doesn’t matter, RPM’s don’t matter, Size doesn’t matter, prop doesn’t matter.
<b>Lets fly some combat.</b>

Fast class it don't matter, 70,90,120 MPH, what ever it takes to get you off.
<b>Lets fly some combat.</b>

Scale, I don't know that much about, if it's to be 2548 or 2610. I've only flown scale a couple times.
<b>Lets fly some combat.</b>

Did you pick up the moral to this story.
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Bob, in your post it says that size does not matter. My wife said a man made that up [:0][B)]

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
Feathers
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: USA

Post by Feathers »

Bob,

I got it. I've reread some of my recent posts and I need to step back. I'll relax. Mark's right, there are other hobbies and it's just about time for me to spend some hours in a tree with my bow. Much quieter hobby and there's nothing to repair!

I think I need to rethink trying to keep planes going for two pilots for two classes. It's just too much work for me to keep 13 planes ready to fly. I apologize for my recent posts.

"I'll try to get some sleep and be less grumpy in the morning."
Bob Leone
Posts: 252
Joined: Thu Aug 08, 2002 11:56 pm
Location: USA

Post by Bob Leone »

Jimbo
Thats right, it don't matter how long it is for us to fill good.
Bad Dawg
Posts: 388
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2003 3:27 pm
Location: Solomon Islands

Post by Bad Dawg »

I think AJ is spot on. It's a gut feeling mostly, and I still think the RCCA needs to plan a course of action and stick to it for a considerable period of time.

Boilermaker, Are you a real 'Snipe' or is that your poison of choice?

NUNC AUT NUNQUAM
Mark V.
The perpetual 'newbie'
Devil Dog
Posts: 107
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2003 4:37 pm

Post by Devil Dog »

There are less big meets this year compared to the last 2 years. My best meets this year are one day SSC events in Georgia followed by meets in Michigan. The Michigan group seems to be searching for something while trying to hang on to 2610. They seem to be struggling with SSC and are also having a hard time promoting Open-B.

My opinion is that SSC is currently the most competitive class, but I’m not sure if it is nothing more than blue prop Open-A. I like the lighter airplane concept to help reduce destruction, which is why I’m dabbling with 1/2A. I’m finding 1/2A is hard though. Talk about finicky.

In order to fix and stabilize the current classes, I would like to see the provisional class system eliminated. My opinion is that most of the arguments are caused because of the provisional class system. I would also like the RCCA to govern more like NASCAR where they control what and how technology is applied. If airplanes go too fast, get too destructive, or get too expensive, they would implement rules quickly to correct it. Currently it is up to the membership to slug it out on the forums of which I question the benefits.

Beyond 2004, I have no idea.

Jay Fromm
Cincinnati, OH
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Jay all I can say is you would be flying alone very soon if you didn't listen to the people that support combat, the pilots. Without a provisional class system you would see new combat organizations popping up everywhere.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
mark s
Posts: 313
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2004 12:31 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by mark s »

As the 3rd someone (also a newbie) who flies combat with nvillerod and Boilermaker, it is my perspective that we have to have a class that is for beginners. We are currently working are tails off trying to get people interested in combat in Indiana. I think that there’s room for all classes, but in our area, we currently don’t have enough combaters to support multiple classes. Without focusing on a beginner’s class, combat will die. I personally like flying Open B, Limited B, and SSC. But like Boilermaker stated, we scared people to death with how fast we became in such a short time flying open B. I don’t know if SSC or limited B class is the answer, but we need to choose one beginner's class and stick with it. Please understand that I too am newbie, and not claiming to know anything about combat. We just think in an area that is just getting started in combat, we have to focus on a simple beginners class.

Any input would be appreciated.
Jimbo
Posts: 1082
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2001 11:28 pm
Location: USA

Post by Jimbo »

Do like we are doing, make up a class for your area. Something that meets the needs of local pilots. SPADs with trainer engines like the plain bearing .40 is a good start. Newbies don't care about the NPS and most pilots have one or two cheap engines hanging around.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
boilermaker
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 9:10 pm
Contact:

Post by boilermaker »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Feathers</i>
I've got news for you. The entry of a limited class using the provisional system has already divided many areas in just the manner you describe. In fact, we don't even have a group of guys flying one class here and one there- in some places we have one group on one side of the field and another on the other. We have meets with SSC in the morning and Open B in the afternoon requiring folks who want to fly for the day to bring more planes with them than ever before. Or, if they chose to fly one class, they drive 6-10 hours for 20-25 minutes of combat. Many decide to not attend at all.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I guess that's true, we've already got a divided system, so what the hell, why not another six or seven classes? If the RCCA does a really really good job abusing the provisional system, we could drive coast to coast and never find another club flying our class, because every club has its own.


<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"> I happen to think that the idea of being able to use the same engine in an open, scale, and limited event is appealing. I suspect that the logic of having a limited class that allows an easy progression to the most popular open class will be appreciated by many new pilots.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
I understand the benefit of the single engine even though the average two class competitor is going to have enough for their limited and open ships anyway, and those who aren't going to compete in multiple classes don't need the carryover. But who is really going to weigh that and easy launches against slower speeds and less destruction when it comes to pilot attraction and retention?

My vision of the RCCA isn't as a warehouse for rules of every club combat conceived and a place to send points after a contest. Why dumb it down that far? Apparently I'm mistaken in thinking that a purpose of the RCCA is fostering the growth of the combat community. Since that isn't part of the RCCA's vision, then I don't see any problems with ushering new pilots into a class where they're less likely to continue thanks to increased cost and workshop time. I finally see the light.
boilermaker
Posts: 100
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 9:10 pm
Contact:

Post by boilermaker »

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jimbo</i>
<br />Do like we are doing, make up a class for your area. Something that meets the needs of local pilots. SPADs with trainer engines like the plain bearing .40 is a good start. Newbies don't care about the NPS and most pilots have one or two cheap engines hanging around.

Limited-B
Try it,you'll like it !
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I finally get your vision of what the RCCA should be all about. It should have nothing to do with attracting or retaining pilots. That should be done at the local level. Basically the only purpose of the RCCA is to keep tally of contest scores for which it has a list of rules. Combat really should only be flown competitively within one's own group and the RCCA shouldn't endorse being able to drive down the road and fly with other people under the same set of rules. It certainly shouldn't acknowledge the fact that people who have to spend less time and money replacing destroyed equipment are more likely to stay in the hobby, rather it should endorse local clubs promoting a more destructive beginners class understanding that it is reasonable to have a higher attrition rate in order that some people can have less trouble launching.
Post Reply

Return to “Proposed Provisional Classes”