Naramlive has been updated.

The Tablet is misbehaving with the Webcam software (keeps crashing) so I
will not try to run the webcam. I will however video tape the whole thing.
All Day 5 content is online. George Kicked but in F Dual Egg Loft with
nearly 22 minutes !!!
Some of the sport range shots came out great !! check them out.
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
Loading thread data ...
Yeah but - with a RC/RG! No fair! ;O)
Nice work Chris, thanks again!
Reply to
BB
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (GCGassaway) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@mb-m11.aol.com:
George, don't take it personally. It's Bob, after all...
len.
Reply to
Leonard Fehskens
here here
Bob if you want a parachute only egg loft even stop ruining out events. go through the process of GETTING a parachute only egg loft even created. I know you know how to do that.
if it fails to be created we know where the interest of the masses are.
Chris Taylor
formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
George, I am afraid that you missed Bob's point. I think that he is trying to say is that when using a parachute to recover an egglofter, it is very dificult to both get a good time and bring back the egg. That is why he calls it a recovery event. Bob floated a B egglofter over the Pittsburgh range a few years ago for an incredible time. But it was never recovered and didn't count. No recovery, no qualified flight.
Your approach changes the emphasis from getting the egg back to getting the glider to perform. Recovery is no longer a problem. You put in a 22 minute flight and landed the egg as close as you wanted to. A 22 minute flight with a parahute would drift a very long way and be in serious danger of never coming down.
Bob did not say that what you are doing is easy, just different. And the point about the batteries is a valid one. If there were more than one competitor using a RCRG, the one with the longest lasting batteries would win, all else being equal.
GCGassaway wrote:
It's jsut a
Anything
Duration,
Duration
else was
something
multi-round
that (Won
getting a good
key being
combo it
burned out (a
until that
motor combos
reasonable,
using two C6?s
E9 ignited
the model
prevent
and flying
25 minutes
other R/C F
say that
to drown,
models
people end
Indeed
often other
?Recovery?, it
they are,
with zero
other
other two
back-up? Was
try to
2nd flight,
Reply to
David Schultz
I happen to agree with Dave Cook from his 1987 Pink Book revision comments (you know, the ones that left George with egg o his face when he never finished the project). ELD is a good way to reduce absurd flight times on PD models. DELD is just plain pointless. As is ELD beyond 20 NS.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Please correct me if I am wrong:
If RC is not prohibited in the laws (and if the pink book is the _law_) then why would it not be allowed? If the laws say parachute only then PDELD it is. If it simply states that a recovery device is to be deployed... Well, if it goes up like a rocket and comes down like a glider then a recovery device has been deployed. Feel free to correct me as I have yet to understand all the hoopla over this competition minutiae thingie...
Being a non (yet) competitor I find all this most fascinating.
Patrick
> > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!
formatting link
Reply to
IceAge
George, congratulations on your well engineered and earned F DELD victory. They'll probably change the rules to prohibit your design solution. Sadly, that is called flying in the face of progress. I wish every flight could be controlled to land near the launch site! This would take athletic ability out of our sport.
My only nit might be the no human intervention landing rule. To be fair you could make the last 2 minutes or so of the flight uncontrolled so that it essentially has the same probability of landing on a hard surface as everyone else.
My complaint is with ELD itself. Eggloft is supposed to be an altitude event. ELD was created so that contests too small to staff a tracking range could still experience the joys of launching raw eggs. There is no excuse for flying ELD at a NARAM, and certainly no need to fly both ELA and ELD in the same contest.
Alan
Reply to
Alan Jones
Bob did not say that what you are doing is easy, just different. And the point about the batteries is a valid one. If there were more than one competitor using a RCRG, the one with the longest lasting batteries would win, all else being equal.
Reply to
GCGassaway
George, congratulations on your well engineered and earned F DELD victory.
They'll probably change the rules to prohibit your design solution. Sadly, that is called flying in the face of progress. I wish every flight could be controlled to land near the launch site! This would take athletic ability out of our sport.
My only nit might be the no human intervention landing rule.
Reply to
GCGassaway
RC can be prohibited by a CD in any event or in an entire contest. I've been to meets like this, including one near an existing RC field where the site owner required this condition.
As to F DELD at NARAM, do not forget that the one entry in question here was part of a team whose points benefitted the host section. The NARAM CD had no interest in prohibiting RC in this event. And to whoever claimed this was a fluke flight, do not forget that exactly the same person did exactly the same thing in the same event at the same site 7 years ago.
There is nothing in the ELD rules that specifies the recovery type. I once flew a D EL/HD model (Judy's idea: she wanted a rocket called the Eggbeater). It pranged real good, and I never bothered to fix the problems (needed more torque to deploy the blades). Stremer recovery has also been tried, but resulted in a VERY high broken egg rate. IIRC only ONE persons egg survived.
More than half the Competitors forum Wednesday night was wasted on discussing this topic. There are obviously many different viewpoints on this question. There is no "right" answer.
The most significant comment I had on the topic is that BTCs that use advanced techniques like RCRG for ELD, Zit DTs and Walston beacons for SD, etc. drive the sportsman competitors out of the event. And keep the newbies from even bothering to try competition. This is exactly what we do NOT want to be doing. And why something needs to be fixed.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Bob, you'll be happy to know (or maybe not) that Team Dave & Dave beat your C ELD record this February with a "normal" parachute flight -- no r/c needed ;-)
BTW, I posted a message in another thread asking about the F DELD record at this year's NARAM. I subsequently found the answer to my question in this thread. Team Dave & Dave hopes/plans to beat that record with a "normal" parachute flight as well :-O
Dave (Team Dave & Dave, NAR Team #767)
> > > If RC is not prohibited in the laws (and if the pink book is the > > _law_) then why would it not be allowed? If the laws say parachute > > only then PDELD it is. If it simply states that a recovery device is > > to be deployed... Well, if it goes up like a rocket and comes down > > like a glider then a recovery device has been deployed. Feel free to > > correct me as I have yet to understand all the hoopla over this > > competition minutiae thingie... > > RC can be prohibited by a CD in any event or in an entire contest. I've been > to meets like this, including one near an existing RC field where the site > owner required this condition. > > As to F DELD at NARAM, do not forget that the one entry in question here was > part of a team whose points benefitted the host section. The NARAM CD had no > interest in prohibiting RC in this event. And to whoever claimed this was a > fluke flight, do not forget that exactly the same person did exactly the > same thing in the same event at the same site 7 years ago. > > There is nothing in the ELD rules that specifies the recovery type. I once > flew a D EL/HD model (Judy's idea: she wanted a rocket called the > Eggbeater). It pranged real good, and I never bothered to fix the problems > (needed more torque to deploy the blades). Stremer recovery has also been > tried, but resulted in a VERY high broken egg rate. IIRC only ONE persons > egg survived. > > More than half the Competitors forum Wednesday night was wasted on > discussing this topic. There are obviously many different viewpoints on this > question. There is no "right" answer. > > The most significant comment I had on the topic is that BTCs that use > advanced techniques like RCRG for ELD, Zit DTs and Walston beacons for SD, > etc. drive the sportsman competitors out of the event. And keep the newbies > from even bothering to try competition. This is exactly what we do NOT want > to be doing. And why something needs to be fixed. > > > Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" > >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! > Save Model Rocketry from the HSA!
formatting link
Reply to
Dave
That's fine, and I respect your view. But it needs to be codified into law (pink book) and be done with it.
Some have publicly crucified the winner when I see no laws (pink book) being broken. Please correct me if the laws say otherwise.
Geeze, you would think he was a liberal or something with all the vitriol over this issue 8^)
Patrick
Reply to
IceAge
kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in message
That's hardly significant. I suppose all those fancy electronics used in HPR should be eliminated to based on this reasoning. Enter the 21st century already Bob or be happy not stepping up to the podium.
Kevin Kuczek
Reply to
Kevin Kuczek
As to F DELD at NARAM, do not forget that the one entry in question here was part of a team whose points benefitted the host section.
The NARAM CD had no interest in prohibiting RC in this event.
The most significant comment I had on the topic is that BTCs that use advanced techniques like RCRG for ELD, Zit DTs and Walston beacons for SD, etc. drive the sportsman competitors out of the event. And keep the newbies from even bothering to try competition. This is exactly what we do NOT want to be doing. And why something needs to be fixed.
Reply to
GCGassaway
I am replying to this not in relation to gliders.
the problem here is not what you think. the problem here is another issue that gets me hot under the colar (sp)
it gets me hot because I know their is no current solution to it.
the base problem with Nar competition once you get to C division is that it is a SKILL based sport but we seperate it based on AGE. this is incorrect.
Most SKILL based events are seperated based on SKILL. Most AGE based events are seperated based on AGE.
some exceptions for example are wrestling but only internally. externally it is age seperated and THEN in that age division it is (by need) weight seperated. if I wreslted someone half my weight I could crush them (literally)
Chess is NOT age seperated (once in the dult classes for all parts of this discussion) it is SKILL seperated because it is a SKILL based event.
a 25 year old could easily be in the same SKILL class as a 45 year old or a 95 year old. age is not relevant past a certain point (lets call it 18 for this discussion)
problem is in rocketry we AGE seperate a SKILL based activity. THIS and ONLY THIS is why we get the problem you describe. it is george's and Ryan's and Kaplow's and Always' SKILL that seperated them from the rest of us NOT their age yet we are all tossed in with them in the same class. hence why except for flukes the same people "tend" to be in the top of the classes if they attend and actually try to win.
Now the solution is simple but impossible. we need to SKILL seperate. Novive, Intermediate, Advanced and then maybe even Master Class.
but now for why it is sadly impossible. we are small fries. their are simply NOT enough of us in this hobby to be able to create a viable set of skill classes with viable competitive structure. we simply do not have enough competitors. we might have 5000 members but only about 500 competitors. even 5000 competitors would not be enough sadly.
I think we should at least TRY to creat 2 C divisions (it is out most plentiful class) one for Beginners and one for Everyone else. Movement to the higher class would not be determined by age or time as a nar competitor. it would be determined when you have a history of skill winnings about the novice class. IE when you would become moderately competitive in the higher class. some people would move up immediately. some would stay novice for years.
it should also be split. so you can remain novice in some events but advanced in others. example. somene might get proficient at construction events such as Duration or Altitude but still lack skills incraftmanship events.
this is what will solve your problem. not kicking out the master level people and telling them your too good and keep me from winning so I want to cripple you to my level.
I would like to at least ATTEMPT to do something like this even if in the beginning only on the national (naram) level for now.
anyone who wishes to discuss this please make a new thread or e-mail me. if enough want to assist in trying to work out the details of making something remotely like this viable I would love to talk with you.
Just in case anyone is wondering I would voluntarily put myself in the advanced level. I have the skill I am just lazy in practicing and applying it. :-)
Chris Taylor
formatting link

formatting link

Reply to
Chris Taylor Jr
I did note that. I'm still annoyed that the timers only saw our flight for 17 minutes, while every one else in the range head saw it for over half an hour. The 31+ minute time would have beat EVERY duration record on the list.
Back in the old days, when you set a US record, you got some sort of certificate for your efforts. Now, you don't always even get the record (my first AUTOMATIC record never showed up, and for my third I had to straight to the records chairman, as the paperwork from the contest never got to him to check for records), and even if you do get it, you never get any notification unless you go look at the list to see your name.
One problem is that for duration events other then ELD / DELD, it's not necessarilly the event winner that gets the record. My most recent AWOL record only placed 5th or 6th or something like that. This frequently never happens.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
My experience with B6-2s is that they work pretty good. That's what I thermalled away at NARAM-41. And at the MSC contest before NARAM-29?
There's no excuse for SR at all. All the problems we've had with the rules show it's just a BAD event. And should be dumped.
Naah, Gassaway woudl just fly another RC shuttle...
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
All the fancy electronics in HPR birds aren't for competition. And HPR birds are expensive to start with. A B PD model is a couple bucks, the electronics a couple hundred.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
I set several records with similar results.
I set a Class 5 (F) altitude record at GHS's NARWIN-1 (competing against Lonnie Reese with his own notors) and got 1st place and 1041m. Record applied for and fell through the cracks several times.
Sunnyvale, CA (where Trip Barber flew at the time) F altitude E6-0 to E6-8 in an Estes kit with Gary Rosenfield present (the motormaker). 1992m and a clear record that stands today.
Sent the data to Estes for MRn and to errortech for testimonial use and to NAR for records.
Only NAR dropped the ball and they had the contest results to fall back on. And the CD pummeling them with repeated contacts because he was so stoked a guaranteed permanant record had happened at his launch WITHOUT a hot track.
Jerry
The moore things change the more things stay the same at NAR.
Reply to
Jerry Irvine

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.