Paul Jefferies Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 First let me say that I wholeheartedly support what UKCCA is trying to do in preserving "classic" designs and the old style of aerobatic flying. However I am uneasy about the flat restriction on models up to 1986...... There is no question that as radios and engines developed, model design also evolved according to what was possible. But if we are planning to have competitions, however informal, it is not a very level playing field to pit a Taurus against a Curare. My feeling is that all we need to do is fly to the old style schedules and to the old rules re. engines and model weight (10cc and 5Kg). To encourage the use of older designs judges would award a "bonus" of 1% of flight score for every year the design was published before 1986........ So for instance, if you built say, a Taurus (design was published in 1962) you would get a bonus of 24% on your flight score but if you built a Curare (published in 1976) you would only get a bonus of 10%. Models designed after '86 could be flown but would not attract a bonus.......... I like designing my own models but none were ever published so provided the model was under 5Kg and had no more than a 10cc engine, it could be flown at a UKCAA event but would not get a bonus. The bonus system would probably need fine tuning in the light of experience but what I am trying to do is preserve and encourage the use of the old designs whilst not excluding the possibility of "modern classics". I confess that I would also like to see a "Builder of the model" rule and the use of the old "Standard", "Senior" and "Masters" schedules as were used in the early days of the GBR/CAA but I don't want to put people off! What do people think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"L"Plate Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I think that you may have an idea for competition with your % bonus for older models. I am not sure about the "Builder of the model" bit would you add a bonus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Jefferies Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 Builder of the model........"would you add a bonus?"........... 'Good idea, yes, why not? I do not mean "Designer of the model" but a "Builder bonus" would be good to encourage building skills so what about a fixed bonus of "X" points if you build the model yourself and then a % bonus on Builder bonus + flying score, depending on the age of the design. That would encourage people to build classics like the Taurus/Orion but not exclude anyone from trying the flying style even with a RTF, foamie or a second-hand model....... These things are all open for discussion but we need to decide what are our priorities. Is the priority preserving the designs, building them or flying accurate aerobatics? The bonuses could be weighted depending on what the priorities are perceived to be. Edited By Paul Jefferies on 02/03/2014 10:59:48 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Michie Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I agree with the principle of "bonus % for earlier designs................ Though the actual %age would need to be discussed/decided upon. Perhaps to simplify by way of Decades or "year periods" eg '60's/ '70's etc; or 1960-65; 1966-70, etc (bearing in mind there were at times HUGE development steps eg from straight wings, fixed gear & standard mufflers, to the "full-house" '70's designs). Vis my Kwik Fli with a cross-flow .60, compared to the DB or Curare with full-house kit. What about simpler schedules for simpler models instead? Above all, I believe it needs to be kept simple & transparent, though fair! We're only doing this for FUN after all! Do you, for example, deduct a few % for a Kwik Fli if it's got a modern .61 on a pipe.................? (like the "noise penalty" in an F3A Scoresheet) Food for thought................. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
"L"Plate Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 The thing that must be kept is the Fun element, it also needs to be simple. I like the idea of three schedules any more and you may not have enough in any one to keep it fun. Bonus % for age as Bill has it would be good and a Bonus as a % for build by pilot, would be good to encourage building (but would have to be fairly low not to put off buy and fly pilots) further bonus for period power plant (again a small %) may help to promote vintage flying. As Bill say "Above all, I believe it needs to be kept simple & transparent, though fair! We're only doing this for FUN after all!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.