The IROC of C/L Aerobatics? (what if).

[TigreST]

I've been reading a lot of the posts related to the recent Worlds in France.  Very interesting stuff to me who is not a competitor.  As I have been reading an idea sort of struck me.."What if...." 

What if a competition was held in which all of the pilots flew the same airframe/motor combination...like motor sports racing did with the IROC series back in the day? The competitors draw lots for the aircraft they fly...(Yatsenkeo Sharks built to the same spec and state of tune, etc?) ...and then you go from there with the AMA or FAI format.  I know it might never happen.  Just thinking/dreaming out loud is all.

T.

[Howard Rush]

Alternatively, we could have one guy fly everybody's airplane.  I think I'd prefer that.

[RandySmith]

You are not going to get many  takers  on that !  Many would refuse  to  buy an airplane they wanted to compete with.
Also if you let them build the  "same"  airplane to specs, then you will find you need a  "tech inspection"  of everyone they build, to weed out the inevitable upgrades and changes that would be  made to them.

So I think I would go along with  what Howard said !  :-)

Randy

[john e. holliday]

This has been suggested in the recent past and it did not go ant where.  Wo is going to spend the money for the planes and who gets to fly such planes?   

[Dave_Trible]

I think they just did that in Landres.

Dave

[peabody]

A couple occasions come to mind.
One was at Westover (not the Nats) where five or six flew (an Ares?) with only handle change/adjustment.
Another time in Flushing...maybe Windy's plane?
The results favored the plane owner by a bunch.

Seems to me that a bunch of good guys flew a Jamison in OTS at the Nats and did well enough that someone whined and caused a rule change?

The Yatsinko  planes must be real good....several with virtually unlimited funds choose them. but, as Jose points out they are the same yet different.

[Trostle]

Seems to me that a bunch of good guys flew a Jamison in OTS at the Nats and did well enough that someone whined and caused a rule change?

One Jamison in OTS at the 99 Nats = 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 14th = BIG UPROAR.

That Jamison was the second built built in California from plans developed from the Charles Mackey book, Pioneers in Control Line Flying, and was the prototype for the RSM kit, and is pictured on the RSM kit.

Keith

[Ted Fancher]

One Jamison in OTS at the 99 Nats = 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 14th = BIG UPROAR.

That Jamison was the second built built in California from plans developed from the Charles Mackey book, Pioneers in Control Line Flying, and was the prototype for the RSM kit, and is pictured on the RSM kit.

Keith

Why the uproar, Keith.  There's no BOM in our "modern" OTS event is there?  Nor are there any appearance points (although at least from 1949 to 1953 [the last year of "official" OTS] there were up to 80 Appearance Points).  By definition the lack of a BOM rule expressly accepts contestants who didn't build the airplane they're flying.

Ted

[Trostle]

Why the uproar, Keith.  There's no BOM in our "modern" OTS event is there?  Nor are there any appearance points (although at least from 1949 to 1953 [the last year of "official" OTS] there were up to 80 Appearance Points).  By definition the lack of a BOM rule expressly accepts contestants who didn't build the airplane they're flying.

Ted

What you write is all correct.  However, after that Nats, one of several new rules were proposed, at least for the Nats.  One was that no more than two people could fly the same airplane.  Another was that only one trophy per airplane.  I do not know which is applied now.  I think that something like that is also used at VSC.

I mentioned at the time that that episode at the 99 Nats should serve as a harbinger of what can happen when the BOM is eliminated from our AMA PA event, yet some people are clamoring for the elimination of the BOM rule.  Those people do not understand they can and some do organize contests (mostly in the East I think) and do not enforce the BOM rule for their Skill Classes.  As far as being a harbinger in 1999, we are finally seeing what can happen with "procured models" where a significant number of those were flown at this past World Championships last week, most of which were fully capable of being flown in the Finals (in my humble opinion).  Their only limitation is the handle manipulators (in my humble opinion) and in some cases the power/power control systems being used.

Keith

[Jim Carter]

Alternatively, we could have one guy fly everybody's airplane.  I think I'd prefer that.

    I volunteer to be the pilot but I want it known up front .... I'm broke  .... just in case there's a slight faux pas from Mother Earth!!   

[peabody]

Unless something has changed {impossible to tell as the OTS and Classic rules have disappeared from the PAMPA web site), the 2011 rules awarded 5 bonus points for a flier built model.

[Bob Hunt]

This is a great idea; and we'll all fly 1980s vintage Camaros...

Bob Hunt

[Brett Buck]

Why the uproar, Keith.  There's no BOM in our "modern" OTS event is there?  Nor are there any appearance points (although at least from 1949 to 1953 [the last year of "official" OTS] there were up to 80 Appearance Points).  By definition the lack of a BOM rule expressly accepts contestants who didn't build the airplane they're flying.

   Oh man, you tee'd it up for Keith, but he didn't take a full swing.

    Of course, the problem was that everybody wanted no BOM to enhance "participation", but apparently that only extends to "participation" that is at the bottom of the scoreboard. This event resulted in 4 more people "participating" in OTS than would have otherwise, so that should have been great. But, when 3 of the 4 came in 1-2-3 and swept the event, turned out that people didn't really want that kind of "participation" after all. It could have been 6 more and 1-2-3-4-5-6 if luck held, but several of us declined.

   Anybody who got worked up over that situation might want to consider what would happen if we could do the same thing in Open. I once suggest a thought experiment, where the BOM has gone away. The local Usual Suspects (Ted, David, Paul, Howard, Whitely, Keith, PTG, Uncle Jimby, etc) all build airplanes for the NATs. We get together somewhere with Paul and I trimming them, pick the best two, and have them shipped to Muncie. Then we get every hotshot on the West Coast together, they all fly in on Tuesday evening, and fly them in Open. If you think doing it in OTS caused a flap....

 Note that this is not far off the scenario you might get with Yatsenko or other RTF airplanes, now you have people knowing more-or-less nothing and doing more-or-less nothing except showing up and waving handles. That's what we must prevent.

     Brett

[Trostle]

   Oh man, you tee'd it up for Keith, but he didn't take a full swing.

  Note that this is not far off the scenario you might get with Yatsenko or other RTF airplanes, now you have people knowing more-or-less nothing and doing more-or-less nothing except showing up and waving handles. That's what we must prevent.

     Brett

Brett,

Maybe you missed my last statement above.  I think we are talking about the same thing

"As far as being a harbinger in 1999, we are finally seeing what can happen with "procured models" where a significant number of those were flown at this past World Championships last week, most of which were fully capable of being flown in the Finals (in my humble opinion).  Their only limitation is the handle manipulators (in my humble opinion) and in some cases the power/power control systems being used."

Keith

[Mike Callas]

I believe the original series was in Porsche RSRs. so the planes would have to be rear engine pushers.

This is a great idea; and we'll all fly 1980s vintage Camaros...

Bob Hunt

[Brett Buck]

Brett,

Maybe you missed my last statement above.  I think we are talking about the same thing

   Of course, I agree on that part,  but I think Ted was baiting someone to point out the bit about "participation" and how everybody loves it - until they get knocked out of the money, then, "participation" is a problem to be solved. 

    Brett