NERCCA newsletter Issue 6 - 12/2/1994 48 subscribers If you wish to unsubscribe from this distribution, just send an unsubscribe message including your actual name and email address so I can find you in the list. If you know someone that you think would enjoy this mailing, feel free to forward it to them and they can directly subscribe by sending their name and email address to racores@world.std.com. Frequency seems to be about 1 message per week. Combat report taken from "The Broken Prop" newsletter of the Wichita Falls Texas R/C Club 10/29/94 Combat Meet - Doug Powell Let me open this short report with a GREAT BIG THANK YOU to the five companies that very generously send us kits to be awarded to our contestants. Those companies were, "The Airplane Factory" - Kombat .40 kit; "Direct Connection R/C" - Pattern Bat Kit; "First Step R/C" - Scorpion (FS-20) kit; Gilbert Aircraft Performance Products (G.A.P.P.)" - Diamond Dust kit; and "RA Cores" - Gremlin kit. These folks also sent along some discount certificates to be used toward the purchase of their products and information packages about those products. G.A.P.P. send along a video tape of their Diamond Dust and Diamond Unlimited kits in action. Rich Maurer has that tape in the club library and you should treat yourselves to this unbelievable footage! The video was shown at the meeting, but there was not enough time left to watch the whole tape. Check it out! Now, to the action! The morning dawned overcast and cloudy but the morning began to warm up as the preparations got underway out at the field. There were at least eleven club members present to help out with the judging and various jobs to be done. Rich Maurer took the helm for me as the event CD. I had discovered only a week before the event that I had a conflict in schedules and would not be able to CD or fly in the event. I want to thank Rich for stepping in for me on such short notice. From what all I have heard about the event, he did an excellent job. By flight time we had seven pilots signed up, warmed up, tuned up, and keyed up. There were four rounds of four pilot matches flown before the lunch break and three more four pilot matches flown after lunch. The action was hot and heavy for the whole day with a mid-air during the morning and the second one in the afternoon. The first couple of flights in the morning were hampered a bit by a problem with the dew on the grass making weak spots in the streamers causing them to break on their own. [Ed note: in New England we regularly see this problem and have taken to launching with the streamer being pulled out of an open paper grocery bag, thus never coming in contact with the ground before flight] Once this problem was overcome the action was absolutely relentless. The final standings for the event saw Billy Brock from Weatherford taking first place [I've heard he was flying a Gremlin!]; Ken Baker, also from Weatherford, taking second place, and our own Phil Henry taking third place. Each of the top three place finishers won a plaque and a kit. Terry Moore, who was involved in both mid-airs was awarded a kit as the hard luck pilot for the day. The Diamond Dust kit was raffled off and the winner of that kit was Mr. Jerry Harris. The pilots that flew in the event were Terry Moore, Kurt Chelf, Tim Noble, Billy Brock, Phil Henry, Ken Baker, and Matt Vastine. I would like to thank Robert McKain, Ron Kemnitz, Charlie Young, Doyle Irwin, Phil Henry, Kurt Chelf, Terry Moore, Ray Hudson, Kevin Lillie, Jack Craig, and Bob Adair for coming out and helping Rich Maurer pull this event off so successfully. If I leftout anyone's name, please let me know and I will recognize you in the next newsletter, because you weren't intentionally left off the list and I honestly feel that if you took the time to come out and help, that you deserve recognition for that effort. Thanks to all of you guys that came up from Weatherford to play with us. In closing I would like to once more thank the vendors who so graciously answered my plea for donations to our prize table. It is nice to be able to take home a trophy and bragging rights for "placing" in any event, but it is always a bit nicer if you can take home a prize of some sort. You vendors made this possible for my flyers and on their behalf and from the bottom of my heart, I thank you VERY much. .....Chief Some thoughts and Observations on "Open R/C Combat" by Doug Powell It has been my observation over the past two and one half to three years that there is considerable interest in a form of Non-AMA Rulebook Radio Controlled Combat all over the United States and in particular, here in Texas. This brand of Combat is, I feel, intended for the "average Joe" who wants to compete in an event without having to build a special purpose aircraft and endure the dogged regimentation and endless hours of practice normally associated with competition events. While chasing someone around the sky and muttering machine gun noises under your breath is not exactly new to R/C pilots, the fairly recent rebirth of interest in tying a streamer onto your plane and flying in a structured event designed to physically cut a streamer towed by another flyer has spawned what we here in North Central Texas call "Open R/C Combat". Within the past three years I have noticed a proliferation of Radio Controlled Aircraft kits specifically designed with aerial combat in mind. One has but to scan any of the current Model Aircraft Pubmications' advertisements to see what I mean. the majority of these kits, which are speciofically designed for this "open" style of combat, are fast, easily constructed, fairly small, VERY aerobatic, and are intended to be powered by engines in the .25 to .32 c.i. displacement range. While it is hard to deny that these planes usually fair a bit better in the heat of the match, I feel that it is important that we not loose sight of how this type of event got started and what it was originally intended as. That being an event where "Joe Average" could drag out his old epoxy coated Eagle II, put an old radio in it, jack up the throws, stuff a .46 in it and go fly!! Keep it simple and cheap!! I also feel that it is important that we as R/C Combat flyers not let the modeling industry turn this truly "FUN" type of competition into one of specialization. Having said that, I think that it is important to recognize that within the sphere of R/C Combat the IS plenty of room for specialized types of Combat aircraft and events where the prime element of FUN can be kept alive. As an interested observer, sometimes participant, and a contest director at a number of the "open combat" events in this area, I have noticed that there are common threads and divergent elements which run through each of these meets. I would like to address a few of these threads and elements and how I feel that they are keeping the "Open Combat" groundswell alive, but at the same time asre stifling it's growth, participation and recognition as a valid form of competition in which virtually any R/C Pilot can compete in regardless of his tenure within the R/C flying society. Common Threads: Simplicity of event rules seems to be most evident of those common threads which bind these events together. This type of event is intended primarily for fun, and therefore, the fewer rules, regulations and restrictions which must be adhered to tends to enhance that vital element of FUN! The acceptance of any type of fixed wing aircraft design, streamer length and materials, engine displacement limitations, launching stipulations and scoring are also common threads, but at the same time manifest themselves as divergent elements as one travels from meet to meet to compete. Another common thread among these combat meets is an alarmingly low number of entrants at one meet. The average number of flyers at any once event is usually seven to ten. (I might add that the spectator count at these events is usually quite high.) Divergent elements: As I have stated above, many of the elements which are addressed in the rules for these Combat meets are very similar, but vary slightly from field to field. For example; at, say Weatherford, Texas, the rules might require that all planes pull the same length streamer, any size engine is allowed, and points being awarded for cuts only. now, travel up the road 120 miles to Wichita Falls, Texas, and you will be required to limit engine displacement to .46 c.i. or smaller, planes with engines whose displacement is .32 or smaller will pull a 20 foot streamer, and engines, .33 through .46 will pull a 40 foot streamer; and points are awarded for each cut, plue one point for every second that the contestant's plane is airborne between the starting and ending match signals. Then, if you want to go down to Ft. Worth and fly Combat with them, you have another localized set of rules under which to fly. It is my gut feeling that all of these localized rules variations may well be what is keeping these small clusters of flyers from coming together at each others' meets. This is extremely unfortunate for a number of reasons. (1) Fewer flyers equates to less fun. (2) Fewer flyers equates to less club revenue. (3) fewer flyers equates to less enthusiasm and support for this type of event. (4) Less fun, less revenues generated, less enthusiasm and support equates to the eventual demise of R/C Combat as a legitimate form of competition. (GASP!!!) I really don't know what the answer is to getting a sort of standardization of rules for this brand of Combat within this area, region, or state. Again my guts tell me that what is needed is a great pow-wow where representatives from each of the various regional hot-beds of R/C Combat could meet and hash out what could eventually take shape as a "common ground" set of rules for these events. This process would not be an "over-nighter" for sure. I would imagine that it would be a process that would require a number of pow-wows before a really acceptable standard is achieved. While I see the need to standardize the rules under which these events would be governed, I also see R/C Combat, which originated as a very loose and one heck of a lot of funtype event, possibly becoming one of specialized aircraft, rules stretching, heated hair splitting, and sour grapes splinter factions reducing the efforts of standardization to the state that R/C Combat is in right now. What is the answer? Do Combat flyers need some sort of National organization rather like the "go-fast-and-turn-left" guys have? De we need to break this brand of Combat into Classes? Does anyone have any input? I would really like to hear from anyone out there who shares my concerns for the current stagnation of Open R/C Combat and who has given serious thought to how to prevent that stagnation. Note: Doug Powell (the author of the above article) can be mailed to at 5218 Kingston Wichita Falls, TX 76310 Come on guys, he asked for input and I know from experience everyone out there has an opinion 8^) - Jim Gremlins in New England - By Jim Reith I just wanted to address some of Doug Powell's points in how I percieve the Gremlin situation here in New England. First some data on how and why the Gremlin got designed. The Gremlin was designed by Eric Henderson and a few flying buddies in the winter of 1991 as a project to solve some of the crash damage situations from his son's Sturdy Birdy. The PVC fuselage was seen as a good shortcut and the tail boom breakage was eliminated in the obvious method and the foam wing and .25 size engine were retained. The wingspan was dictated by the width of the available foam (24" panels) and the overall look was taken from C/L Combat. Foam was retained for the energy absorption of mid-airs and the low cost/quick building/quick repairing features The design and contest format benefitted from some aggressive builders/flyers and an electronic "community" that discussed things in detail between contests. The other thing that helped was the dedication to low cost that we maintained. Wing cores were available pretty cheaply from day one and people could get a bunch of fuselages out of a piece of downspout. I think almost all the wood in the plane was found in scrap boxes other than the possibility of the aileron stock. Sure we have our $120 .32 engines on some now but we have always maintained that plain bearing (bushing) .25 "stock" class using $60 engines and cheap planes. After Eric, Dan Snow and Charlie Watt flew their planes in front of people in the early spring of 1992, word got out that there was fun to be had in a 10 hour building plane without a lot of fuss or money. Literally, Gremlins took over the New England fields where they were flown. It proved to be a stable, enjoyable plane to fly (I still get the kick out of the look on people's faces when I hand over the box on this "weird" looking plane and they find how easy it flies) and handled 25 mph winds while other planes were grounded. I know from my experience with it, it became the plane taken out first to "test the conditions" and many times, was the plane flown all day. I still fly my Gremlins as my all winter plane due to the ease of handlaunching from a footprint covered, snowy field and the ability to toss it in the trunk and get in and warm up between flights. It has also served well as a cheap, disposable testbed for multi-engine experiments and canards. The contest rules we used were discussed electronically and then applied to a contest, be it formal or impromptu, and the results discussed some more. We decided to stick with the single design format (which is sanctionable in the current AMA rules) after the unsuccessful mixing of dissimilar aircraft. The stock planes are evenly matched so the pilot skills (and a lot of luck sometimes) have a chance to shine through. The foam wing was stuck with for a safety concern as well and over time, we have found that even on head on midairs, the wreckage tends to lose all momentum and drop straight down, safely in the "combat box". There was some worry of shearing a built-up wing panel off and having an uncontrollable engine/fuselage/single wing continue for tens or hundreds of yards, possibly into the crowd. The other benefit that was readily apparent with the foam wings was that repairs were a simple matter of finding all the "big" pieces and epoxying them back together, many times as a field repair between rounds! I had a wing with a fiberglassed over "chunk" missing that was a visible window through my wing that I laughed about as a reminder of turning "too early" in front of a Gremlin Gaggle formation flight after a successful contest. After half a dozen of these contests, a demonstration was given at the AMA Nats in 1992 in Chicopee MA. Since then, we have had an average of 6-10 regional open contests per year, many sanctioned, and have developed a rivalry that actively extends from Rhode Island to Maine. Our typical "flying season" contests see 12-20 contestants and even our late season contests like this weekend have 6-8 confirmed attendees. The biggest problem I see in attendance is that many of the "regulars" have other "primary" interests such as pattern, Q500, gliders and such, and schedule conflicts prevent them from attending many contests. AMA sanctioning doesn't really help this problem since you wouldn't flag a conflict between Combat, Gliders, or Pattern in any case. One of the concerns I have towards "over-regulating" this aspect of the hobby, is that if the rules become too formalized and the contests become "for prizes" rather than "for fun", people whine too much about decisions/rulings and the contests get delayed by protests and rule discussion. We've always left it that the CD is "god" when it comes to decisions and that if people want to try something new (scoring, streamer length, engine allowance) at a contest, then volunteer to be a future CD and try it out. If it works, chances are others will use it in future contests, if it doesn't, you got your shot to try it out. The big thing we try to do is let people know what the rules will be in advance and go in it to have FUN. The contests aren't used as fund-raisers, the entry fee is generally used to cover the costs and the rest divided up as "prizes". The fund-raising is left to the "raffles" and concessions. This was adopted after rainouts of contests where prizes were bought ahead. Since these contests move from club field to club field, carryover of prizes wasn't always practical. Besides, everyone knows what to use money for and the amount was dependent on the number of people you competed against 8^) Where is all this going in the future? Well, there will probably be some standardization like Q500 plane specifications that the AMA will take and there might be some engine classification like the freeflight A, B, C, and D to equalize things but for now, New England is too busy getting out there and chasing each other around the skies once every 3 weeks (on average) during our flying season. It's always interesting to see someone at a race or pattern contest, drag out a Gremlin during the score compilation "open flying" time and burn off some stress. That's really where this plane shines in my mind. Like Doug says, let's maximize the FUN! One final note that I wanted to mention... we use 2" crepe paper streamers for all our contests. Yes, getting damp can be a problem but the streamers caught in trees off-field are biodegradable, and we want to keep our flying sites. Try not to use plastic streamers if at all possible since you can't always get to all the pieces cut off. Jim (who goes to pains to recycle all his foam cutting scrap) +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | RA Cores - racores@world.std.com | Affordable, computer cut, custom foam | | P.O. Box 863 | wing cores by modelers, for modelers | | Southbridge, MA 01550 | | | (508) 765-9998 (email preferred) | Home of the R/C Combat Gremlin | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+