Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
Just so you folks interested in building your own once in while know, here is a break down of what is happening at Wood Crafters next week for about 60 entrants. Special Events Thur/Fri and number of entrants: Windfree ONLY = 8MOM Hi Start 60 = 17 Ray's MOM Hi Start Mini Fun Scale = 9 2 Minute Ladder = 32 Longest Flight = 29 Saturday and Sunday Soar In Championship entrants: 2 Meter Unlimited = 29 100 RES = 38 Unlimited = 39 Separate Categories within the Soar In Championship: Best Challenger = 6 Best OLY ll = 11 Best Astro Jeff = 5 Scale, four day aero tow/winch event: Gordon's Rules = 11 Ray's Unlimited Fun Scale = 15 Does this look like fun to you Ray Hayes http://www.skybench.com Home of Wood Crafters - Original Message - From: Jack Womack [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Chuck Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Ray Hayes [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: soaring@airage.com Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating...again Dear Blabby, Since my name was mentioned, and not in vain, I guess a comment here is appropriate. The fact is that the list isn't the only source of eligibility. I, too, have a nostalgia design from 1977 called the Magic Carpet that is not eligible. It was designed for Johnnie Casburn who thought he wanted some of the glider kit market. He was in Ft. Worth and had a hobby shop and a kit mfg. business, making sport power models with a foam wing. It hung in his shop for years, until he sold it to someone else. It was orange and silver. I may try to scan some of the pics I have of it. Unfortunately, and this isn't a personal dig at Jack Iafret, the keeper of the rules wasn't around all that much in the days. As Ray said, some built stock models, but most of us gave them their own personal touches. For instance, I never fully sheeted wings, but usually took the top sheeting back an extra inch, a practice I still use with good results. In a contest where things are checked, that would disqualify my Windfree and my Grand Esprit. I will say that in fact some have presented models that should be allowed to the list, but they ain't there... draw your own conclusions. The Miller mods for the Aquila, if they're allowed, then why not the Womack mods for the Legionair. Why not the Legionair 132, which by all accounts and all opinions save one, should be there. After all, a 132 has been flown at the NOS NATS, with the keeper as the CD. Airfoil changes, planform changes, etc., I can understand why these should not be allowed. I would NOT have allowed the dihedral changes to accomodate the spar mods. That's a planform change. It can change the way the design performs and flys. Why was that compromise made and the rest kept so strict? I gave up on the Nostalgia class when informed that a carbon fiber tail boom would not be allowed for a Legionair. This mod would have much less effect on the design than a dihedral change. The fact is that Nostalgia class models are a pain to build, if you can find a kit. If not, you may have to do the old scratch builders boogie. I built some Legionairs that way, pod and all. It was rewarding, to say the least. Imagine my disappointment had one been a 132, and I had driven from Texas to Muncie, only to be told I couldn't fly. There it is. DISSAPOINTMENT. That's why Nostalgia's growth is dead. Until someone steps up to revive it with some realistic rules, dead it will remain. It won't be me, as I have backed away and jumped off into flying full-scale with both feet. The rules are simpler... Will someone please kick this soap box over and knock me off of it?!?! Dissappointed in Houston. (Jack Womack) --- Chuck Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I too am disappointed with the way Nostalgia at the Nats has developed. I understand the necessity of using the existing winches even though they are much too strong and have too heavy line since it is not practicable to have special winches for one class. I do object to restricting it to one day combined with RES while wasting two days on 2-meter, a class very few would be flying if it wasn't sandwiched between hand launch and unlimited. I also object to flying modern man on man tasks and landings instead of the tasks and landings as flown at the SOAR Nats. The old events are much more suited to the old models. I have entered Nostalgia every year since it was first proposed at the LSF tournament in 1994 and flown in all but four. The first two years were rained out and I didn't stay for the last two because of the weather forecast. (My wife was with me and getting tired.) I will not be entering Nostalgia this year. It is not worth spending another night and paying the high entry fees for three flights. Another day will cost at least $100 or $33 per flight. Maybe I will go back to flying my Sailaire
Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
It is very early am, I can't go to the OVSS in Cinci, so I'll take my frustration out by beating the dead Nostalgia horse. My apologies to everyone. Having an AMA Nostalgia class is good, accept it or not, most entry level into RC Soaring ( non electric) is with a woody, ARF or home built. I don't classify an AVA, etc. as a woody ( beat on that one for a while) because it has a molded wing section. The current NOS rules need to be amended through the AMA process of rules changing ( won't this bring out the know it alls), but NOS will be in trouble because there will be some really goofy rules changes proposed, mostly by people that have no experience of building and flying back in the days of nostalgia and likely no experience flying in a current NOS contest. I truly hope the AMA Nos Nats will grow, so far it hasn't and for several obvious reasons. One of the reasons is the rules are not right and do not reflect what really was going on in the good old days when the SOAR NATS attracted so many more contestants then what we see at the NATS currently. A good example is, it was fairly common practice to fully sheet or partially sheet the wings of a Windfree, Astro Jeff, and etc.. The irony of the rules administration at the NOS NATS is the planes are not checked for compliance, a process that would be impossible to undertake. Another problem at the NOS NATS is the tow lines (and winches) do not comply with the tow lines used during the days the so called NOS rules are trying to duplicate. 280 to 300 lb test tow lines used at the NOS NATS are not compatible with small NOS designs, so it didn't take long to realize the NOS planes to fly at the NATS ( if you were competing to win) were the larger designs and for the lack of size classes in the NOS NATS ( another mistake) it makes flying the larger designs almost mandatory. These conditions are not the best for attracting larger numbers of entrants. My Wood Crafters event was created to attract people who enjoy building and flying a woody, I think the AMA NOS event is developing a reputation for turning people off to NOS. I personally enjoy flying the AMA NOS event, but I have given up on flying my 23 oz Windfree there. Participate in the Rules changing process and hope for the best. Ray Hayes http://www.skybench.com Home of Wood Crafters - Original Message - From: Chuck Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: CapnCrunchie [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: soaring@airage.com Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 9:39 PM Subject: Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating...again You think you got it bad. I am unable to fly my original design that I used to win a first place trophy at the 1974 SOAR Nats because it was never published other than in our club newsletter. The original model still exists but is not flyable on modern high power winches. I did build a replica with a beefed up wing a few years ago to see if if really flew as well as I remembered. It didn't! I did take both the original and the replica to the Nats one year and displayed both along with the 74 SOAR Nats trophy and a sign reading ILLEGAL NOSTALGIA MODEL Chuck Anderson At 09:24 PM 5/20/2005, you wrote: My guess is you have not read the rules because it clearly states the pilot is to provide documentation, no where does it referance a list. C'mon lets face it, if one goes to a contest and his plane is on the List, he wouldn't have to provide documentation, right? BTW, where is the Legionaire 132 on 'the list'? DUUUH! I have been digging and asking for ANY type of documentation so I wouldn't have to be concerned about being disqualified by the CD after driving 200+ miles to attend a NOS event with my MalCo Eagle. Thanks bunches for the info, Chuck Anderson. I see light in the tunnel. Many of us are flying Vintage ships that have been bought at swap meets or from widows and have no source for the plans. Or the plans got wasted during construction! I am trying to find plans or a picture of the box for an Original(first edition) Windrifter 100 that shows the stab mounted on the fuse. I saw one once on eBay but didn't win the bid. Until then, I can't compete at an AMA NOS event with mine THAT, is why I like the way Ray Hayes and Jack Womack think. I also have a set of plans for a Legionaire provided to me by Jack Hamilton that shows how to use a fiberglass boom like the one on his '76 FAI ship. But according to AMA rules - 'taint legal! I understand the original intent of the rules, but they are too restrictive and more dificult to document than a Scale ship!! Blue skies, Capn Crunchie Yahoo! Mail Mobile http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/mobile/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/le arn/mailTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text
Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
I too am disappointed with the way Nostalgia at the Nats has developed. I understand the necessity of using the existing winches even though they are much too strong and have too heavy line since it is not practicable to have special winches for one class. I do object to restricting it to one day combined with RES while wasting two days on 2-meter, a class very few would be flying if it wasn't sandwiched between hand launch and unlimited. I also object to flying modern man on man tasks and landings instead of the tasks and landings as flown at the SOAR Nats. The old events are much more suited to the old models. I have entered Nostalgia every year since it was first proposed at the LSF tournament in 1994 and flown in all but four. The first two years were rained out and I didn't stay for the last two because of the weather forecast. (My wife was with me and getting tired.) I will not be entering Nostalgia this year. It is not worth spending another night and paying the high entry fees for three flights. Another day will cost at least $100 or $33 per flight. Maybe I will go back to flying my Sailaire in Unlimited. After all, my best place at the Nats in the last 20 years was with the Sailaire in 1996. That year I placed 17th and beat a lot of high tech sailplanes. Almost as good as a win. :-) Chuck Anderson At 06:07 AM 5/21/2005, you wrote: It is very early am, I can't go to the OVSS in Cinci, so I'll take my frustration out by beating the dead Nostalgia horse. My apologies to everyone. Having an AMA Nostalgia class is good, accept it or not, most entry level into RC Soaring ( non electric) is with a woody, ARF or home built. I don't classify an AVA, etc. as a woody ( beat on that one for a while) because it has a molded wing section. The current NOS rules need to be amended through the AMA process of rules changing ( won't this bring out the know it alls), but NOS will be in trouble because there will be some really goofy rules changes proposed, mostly by people that have no experience of building and flying back in the days of nostalgia and likely no experience flying in a current NOS contest. I truly hope the AMA Nos Nats will grow, so far it hasn't and for several obvious reasons. One of the reasons is the rules are not right and do not reflect what really was going on in the good old days when the SOAR NATS attracted so many more contestants then what we see at the NATS currently. A good example is, it was fairly common practice to fully sheet or partially sheet the wings of a Windfree, Astro Jeff, and etc.. The irony of the rules administration at the NOS NATS is the planes are not checked for compliance, a process that would be impossible to undertake. Another problem at the NOS NATS is the tow lines (and winches) do not comply with the tow lines used during the days the so called NOS rules are trying to duplicate. 280 to 300 lb test tow lines used at the NOS NATS are not compatible with small NOS designs, so it didn't take long to realize the NOS planes to fly at the NATS ( if you were competing to win) were the larger designs and for the lack of size classes in the NOS NATS ( another mistake) it makes flying the larger designs almost mandatory. These conditions are not the best for attracting larger numbers of entrants. My Wood Crafters event was created to attract people who enjoy building and flying a woody, I think the AMA NOS event is developing a reputation for turning people off to NOS. I personally enjoy flying the AMA NOS event, but I have given up on flying my 23 oz Windfree there. Participate in the Rules changing process and hope for the best. Ray Hayes http://www.skybench.com Home of Wood Crafters RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
Dear Blabby, Since my name was mentioned, and not in vain, I guess a comment here is appropriate. The fact is that the list isn't the only source of eligibility. I, too, have a nostalgia design from 1977 called the Magic Carpet that is not eligible. It was designed for Johnnie Casburn who thought he wanted some of the glider kit market. He was in Ft. Worth and had a hobby shop and a kit mfg. business, making sport power models with a foam wing. It hung in his shop for years, until he sold it to someone else. It was orange and silver. I may try to scan some of the pics I have of it. Unfortunately, and this isn't a personal dig at Jack Iafret, the keeper of the rules wasn't around all that much in the days. As Ray said, some built stock models, but most of us gave them their own personal touches. For instance, I never fully sheeted wings, but usually took the top sheeting back an extra inch, a practice I still use with good results. In a contest where things are checked, that would disqualify my Windfree and my Grand Esprit. I will say that in fact some have presented models that should be allowed to the list, but they ain't there... draw your own conclusions. The Miller mods for the Aquila, if they're allowed, then why not the Womack mods for the Legionair. Why not the Legionair 132, which by all accounts and all opinions save one, should be there. After all, a 132 has been flown at the NOS NATS, with the keeper as the CD. Airfoil changes, planform changes, etc., I can understand why these should not be allowed. I would NOT have allowed the dihedral changes to accomodate the spar mods. That's a planform change. It can change the way the design performs and flys. Why was that compromise made and the rest kept so strict? I gave up on the Nostalgia class when informed that a carbon fiber tail boom would not be allowed for a Legionair. This mod would have much less effect on the design than a dihedral change. The fact is that Nostalgia class models are a pain to build, if you can find a kit. If not, you may have to do the old scratch builders boogie. I built some Legionairs that way, pod and all. It was rewarding, to say the least. Imagine my disappointment had one been a 132, and I had driven from Texas to Muncie, only to be told I couldn't fly. There it is. DISSAPOINTMENT. That's why Nostalgia's growth is dead. Until someone steps up to revive it with some realistic rules, dead it will remain. It won't be me, as I have backed away and jumped off into flying full-scale with both feet. The rules are simpler... Will someone please kick this soap box over and knock me off of it?!?! Dissappointed in Houston. (Jack Womack) --- Chuck Anderson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I too am disappointed with the way Nostalgia at the Nats has developed. I understand the necessity of using the existing winches even though they are much too strong and have too heavy line since it is not practicable to have special winches for one class. I do object to restricting it to one day combined with RES while wasting two days on 2-meter, a class very few would be flying if it wasn't sandwiched between hand launch and unlimited. I also object to flying modern man on man tasks and landings instead of the tasks and landings as flown at the SOAR Nats. The old events are much more suited to the old models. I have entered Nostalgia every year since it was first proposed at the LSF tournament in 1994 and flown in all but four. The first two years were rained out and I didn't stay for the last two because of the weather forecast. (My wife was with me and getting tired.) I will not be entering Nostalgia this year. It is not worth spending another night and paying the high entry fees for three flights. Another day will cost at least $100 or $33 per flight. Maybe I will go back to flying my Sailaire in Unlimited. After all, my best place at the Nats in the last 20 years was with the Sailaire in 1996. That year I placed 17th and beat a lot of high tech sailplanes. Almost as good as a win. :-) Chuck Anderson At 06:07 AM 5/21/2005, you wrote: It is very early am, I can't go to the OVSS in Cinci, so I'll take my frustration out by beating the dead Nostalgia horse. My apologies to everyone. Having an AMA Nostalgia class is good, accept it or not, most entry level into RC Soaring ( non electric) is with a woody, ARF or home built. I don't classify an AVA, etc. as a woody ( beat on that one for a while) because it has a molded wing section. The current NOS rules need to be amended through the AMA process of rules changing ( won't this bring out the know it alls), but NOS will be in trouble because there will be some really goofy rules changes proposed, mostly by people that have no experience of building and flying back in the days of nostalgia and likely no experience flying in a current NOS contest. I truly hope the AMA Nos Nats will
Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
Ray, Your comments were logical and to the point. I hope to compete in NOS at the Nats in 2005 or 2006. Btw the Challenger was test flown last weekend and it is simply awesome! If I had had one in the 70's and 80's I could been very competitive. Thanks again for kitting this excellent model! Tom Gressman
Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
Tom, I'll never forget the first time I flew a Challenger, Barney's, that's when I decided to kit the design and also realized how far ahead Otto's design was back in those days. Enjoy and I'll see you in Muncie Ray Hayes http://www.skybench.com Home of Wood Crafters - Original Message - From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: soaring@airage.com Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 11:00 AM Subject: Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating...again Ray, Your comments were logical and to the point. I hope to compete in NOS at the Nats in 2005 or 2006. Btw the Challenger was test flown last weekend and it is simply awesome! If I had had one in the 70's and 80's I could been very competitive. Thanks again for kitting this excellent model! Tom Gressman RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
[RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
My guess is you have not read the rules because it clearly states thepilot is to provide documentation, no where does it referance a list. C'mon lets face it, if one goes to a contest and his plane is on "the List", he wouldn't have to provide documentation, right? BTW, where is the Legionaire 132 on 'the list'? DUUUH! I have been digging and asking for ANY type of "documentation" so I wouldn't have to be concerned about being disqualifiedby the CD after driving 200+ miles to attend a NOS event with my MalCo Eagle. Thanks bunches for the info, Chuck Anderson. I see light in the tunnel. Many of us are flying Vintage ships that have been bought at swap meets or from widows and have no source for the plans. Or the plans got wasted during construction! I am trying to find plans or a picture of the box for an Original(first edition)Windrifter 100 that shows the stab mounted on the fuse. I saw one once on eBay but didn't win the bid.Until then, I can't compete at an AMA NOS event with mine THAT, is why I like the way Ray Hayes and Jack Womack think.I also have a set of plans for a Legionaire provided to me by Jack Hamilton that shows how to use a fiberglass boom like the one on his '76 FAI ship. But according to AMA rules -'taint legal! I understand the original intent of the rules, but they are too restrictive and more dificult to document than a Scale ship!! Blue skies, Capn Crunchie Yahoo! Mail Mobile Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
Re: [RCSE] The NOS dead horse beating.......again
You think you got it bad. I am unable to fly my original design that I used to win a first place trophy at the 1974 SOAR Nats because it was never published other than in our club newsletter. The original model still exists but is not flyable on modern high power winches. I did build a replica with a beefed up wing a few years ago to see if if really flew as well as I remembered. It didn't! I did take both the original and the replica to the Nats one year and displayed both along with the 74 SOAR Nats trophy and a sign reading ILLEGAL NOSTALGIA MODEL Chuck Anderson At 09:24 PM 5/20/2005, you wrote: My guess is you have not read the rules because it clearly states the pilot is to provide documentation, no where does it referance a list. C'mon lets face it, if one goes to a contest and his plane is on the List, he wouldn't have to provide documentation, right? BTW, where is the Legionaire 132 on 'the list'? DUUUH! I have been digging and asking for ANY type of documentation so I wouldn't have to be concerned about being disqualified by the CD after driving 200+ miles to attend a NOS event with my MalCo Eagle. Thanks bunches for the info, Chuck Anderson. I see light in the tunnel. Many of us are flying Vintage ships that have been bought at swap meets or from widows and have no source for the plans. Or the plans got wasted during construction! I am trying to find plans or a picture of the box for an Original(first edition) Windrifter 100 that shows the stab mounted on the fuse. I saw one once on eBay but didn't win the bid. Until then, I can't compete at an AMA NOS event with mine THAT, is why I like the way Ray Hayes and Jack Womack think. I also have a set of plans for a Legionaire provided to me by Jack Hamilton that shows how to use a fiberglass boom like the one on his '76 FAI ship. But according to AMA rules - 'taint legal! I understand the original intent of the rules, but they are too restrictive and more dificult to document than a Scale ship!! Blue skies, Capn Crunchie Yahoo! Mail Mobile http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/mobile/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mailTake Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. RCSE-List facilities provided by Model Airplane News. Send subscribe and unsubscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please note that subscribe and unsubscribe messages must be sent in text only format with MIME turned off. Email sent from web based email such as Hotmail and AOL are generally NOT in text format
