|05-06-2004, 11:16 AM||#11|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: smithville, MO USA
Total Props: 0
Remove this ad - become a site supporter!
1. Objective. To recreate the excitement of WWII era fighter combat in an enjoyable, safe, 1/12th scale competition that will be interesting for spectators and challenging for the contestants.
3.1 The model must be a 1/12 scale replica of a Pursuit, Fighter or Attack aircraft produced or in service between 1935 and 1955. For the purpose of this contest, an aircraft shall be considered a Pursuit, Fighter or Attack aircraft if its missions routinely involved, or its designer intended any of the following: a) interception of enemy aircraft, b) high speed ground or sea attack, c) dogfighting, d) long and short range escort. The aircraft must have been originally designed to have had onboard guns installed. Aircraft that had guns mounted for defensive purposes only shall not qualify as Pursuit, Fighter or Attack aircraft.
The real problem is that rule 1 and rule 3.1 are contradictory/different according to the combat committee. Rule 1 states the objective is to re-create WWII
FIGHTER combat, and 3.1 says fighter or attack aircraft. It would appear that it was the decision of the MAAC scale combat committee to go with the objective instead of the aircraft requirements.
Both opposing sides in this argument are technically correct. It does seem strange that the rules even have a section 3.1 if rule 1 is the only criteria for determining suitable aircraft.
|05-06-2004, 01:25 PM||#12|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Total Props: 0
I think the problem is the word "recreate". We don't have an exact definition of how exact the word "recreate" is.
For instance if the rule said "exactly recreate" it would mean something different than wording saying "recreate the feeling and look". I believe that the original meaning was to "simulate" to a degree rather than recreate to the exact nth degree.
The interpretation of the rules is different north of the border from what is is south.
There is either a balance between the words "scale and combat" or a fondness for one over the other. In the US the event is scale combat with emphasis on the physical event. In Canada, and this is not to ruffle feathers, it is more about the planes than the competition. So again we agree to disagree. In the US it is about combat, and in Canada it is about Scale.
That, I think, is the reason for the schism.
|05-06-2004, 04:30 PM||#13|
Join Date: Feb 2004
Total Props: 0
I leave any conclusions to be drawn from this up to you.
NOTE for your convinience, I am reposting the Offical Response directly after.
Letter of Protest:
To: The Model Aircraft Association of Canada
From: Pilots directly affected by the below text
C/o Jay Lawless
RE: Protest of Onslaught Over Oakville.
To whom it my concern;
We, the undersigned, wish to file a formal protest regarding the “Onslaught Over Oakville” R/C Scale Combat Event to be held on June 19th, 2004. The main root of our protest centres around Mr. David Fallowfield, and Mr. David Plank, their interpretations of the rules, and their decisions and opinions regarding the above mentioned event. As a side note, the aforementioned men may insist that this protest is an extension of personal attacks, and our attempt to denigrate them and or their contests. This is most definitely not the case, we are simply trying to ensure that their event follows the rules as written, is open to all pilots and qualifying aircraft, and not run in manner designed to limit or exclude participation. This protest is also not against the new rules that were voted on by the Zone Directors at this year’s AGM meetings in March. We understand the right of the Zone directors to act on the recommendations of the various committees, and will abide by their wishes. We also understand though, that aside from safety rules, competition rules go into effect as of 2005, so therefore the rules in question still remain in effect for this year.
We will be using quotes from different online forums that are accessible to the public, to solidify and verify our argument. These forums are available to anyone with Internet access, and therefore all opinions and debate on these forums are a matter of public record. Our disagreements with the decisions and opinions of Mr. Fallowfield and Mr. Plank are based upon statements on these forums. We will reference these quotes, and provide the complete web addresses to finds these quotes, for all to verify. Along with providing any who wish an opportunity verify the manner in which people on both sides of the issue have debated these rules and decision.
Frances Lawless, a member of one of the clubs to which we belong, posted the following question on www.rccanada.ca, in the forums section under the Combat Forum, in the “Onslaught Over Oakville; A Blast” thread (page 2):
I may have 5 American pilots that want to fly at your event but we need to know if these planes will be allowed.
**NOTE** the actual planes where approved at an AMA event as legal from 15 feet.
Including scale wingtips, colors etc..
Note: Here is a list of the pilots she is talking about, and their planes
Keith Jones: Northrop A-17A, Washington Twp. MI
Brian Gilkey: Fairey Battle, Shelby Twp. MI
Don Veres: Fairey Battle and A-17A, St Clair Shores, MI
Scott Gilkey: Fairey Battle, Shelby Twp., MI
Jay Lawless: Northrop A-17A, Troy, MI
Here is the rule in which “eligible” aircraft are determined:
3.1 The model must be a 1/12 scale replica of a Pursuit, Fighter or Attack aircraft produced or in service between 1935 and 1955. For the purpose of this contest, an aircraft shall be considered a Pursuit, Fighter or Attack aircraft if its missions routinely involved, or its designer intended any of the following:
a) interception of enemy aircraft
b) high speed ground or sea attack
c) dog fighting
d) long and short range escort
The aircraft must have been originally designed to have onboard guns installed. Aircraft that had guns mounted for defensive purposes only shall not qualify as Pursuit, Fighter or Attack aircraft.
Here is Mr. Fallowfield’s answer: (note: it appears that Mr. Fallowfield is using the”Objective” as a rule, rather than as it states, the “Objective”
As CD, I must decide which planes get to fly. The first thing in the rules is the objective: "To recreate the excitement of W.W.II era FIGHTER combat in an enjoyable, safe, 1/12th scale competition that will be interesting for spectators and challenging for the contestants."
-the Battle(a day Bomber), the Northrop(never saw action) and the Il-2(a flying tank) will not fly at the Onslaught.
I KNOW these planes are part of an RCCA 2610 wingspan/wing area race that make standard (Mustang, Spitfire, etc.) fighters obsolete, which leads to a decline in interest in the class. These types of planes ARE THE ONLY REASON you have seen a decline in Canadian scale combat pilot participation in your excelent combat matches.( I have entered two).
IN NO WAY am I " anti-American". Tell 'your list of pilots who may be interested' to bring up a 'standard WW2 fighter' (Bobcat's P-47 was the largest last year) and EXPERIENCE what Maac 1/12th scale combat is all about.
Note: The rules do not specify whether the plane must have seen action, only that designers must have intended the plane for a specific use. Also of note here, Mr. Fallowfield even adds
An aircraft to the list, the Il-2. (Add Victor Cherniski, Strathroy Ont. to the list of above pilots), even though the question was never asked. This makes us wonder if the decision is based upon the planes we fly, or how we fly and who we are. As it stands, the above-mentioned planes have been deemed legal at ALL events that they have entered in the USA.
Maybe this is more Mr. Fallowfield’s reason as posted on the above site, under the “Oakville” thread:
The majority of Maac scale combat flyers LIKE WW2 Warbirds, don't 'poke holes' in the rules to gain an advantage over each other. They prefer to OUTFLY each other with similar sized planes. We are having a great time.
In our opinion, allowing the big span/wingarea 'freaks' to adulterate the way we fly, will cause scale combat to wither and die away here. We definately do not want that to happen.
Because of a yearly rules cycle, Maac scale combat rules will evolve to reflect what the majority of Maac scale combat flyers want.
How can you decide to not allow a plane for an event listed under a set of rules for which that plane is legal? This is setting a dangerous precedent. Also the event, in our opinion, is not being run by the rules under which it is listed, but under a distortion of the rules that Mr. Fallowfield has declared.
Following our voicing our opinions of the rules by which that event is being run, Mr. David Plank, the Open Combat Committee Chairperson, (a sitting member of the Scale Combat Committee and an Assistant Zone Director) had the following opinion:
Hi Wes, Thanks for your input. You are right that the other issue is whether planes are scale enough, and whether their specifications are within the 10% rule. However, I still don't think that restricting the types of planes at an event is actually in conflict with the rules, should a CD choose to do that. Both NPS and CNPS rules state that the events must be open to all pilots, and the competition rules indicate what the requirements of a plane must be in order to participate... but nowhere in the rules does it indicate that every aircraft that fits in to those requirements must be eligable to fly at every event. If a contest Director wants to put on an event, for example, that is intended to celebrate the battle of Britain, and thus allows only aircraft that participated in that conflict, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to do so, and still record the results as part of CNPS. It is not an "invitational" as some have argued, since the limitation is not on pilots, but on aircraft. I am sure there will be those who disagree, and everyone seems to have their own interpretation of the rules. Somewhere along the line though, there has to be someone who gets the final word on rules interpretation... if it is not going to be the committees, as some people argue, then it might as well be the Contest Director at his own event.
_________________Dave "SideSlip" Plank MAAC# 64211 Humber Valley RC Flyers
This is a troublesome quote. By using this logic, any event in Canada could be restricted to one type of aircraft, i.e. an IMAC event could be restricted to EXTRA 330’s, yet listed as an Open IMAC event. Pilot might want to call ahead? In the U.S. a Contest Director can restrict the planes entering his/her event, but the event is considered a closed, “invitational” type event, and not as being eligible for (the RCCA) National Scoring Board (NPS). If Mr. Fallowfield wishes to run a “closed” event, that is his right, but he is listing the event as “Open” and as using MAAC (also RCCA) 2610 rules. By his decisions and opinions, he has proven this to not be the case.
As to the consequences that could occur from the reasoning being used by both Mr. Fallowfield and Mr. Plank (and their majority of Canadian Combat Pilots) here are some of the responses that might cause problems within the Canadian Combat Community this year:
Dave (crosscheck) and anyone else who can help: I am about to build my first combat scale plane. Should I select and build my plane to meet the current rules? Or, because you will apparently disqualify certain airplanes that meet the current rules, should I select something different? Which planes that do meet the current rules, other than the ones you have mentioned here, are going to be disqualified on arrival? I'm not trying to be cheeky, but I would like to build the most competietive plane allowed that meets the current rules. I'm getting a bit frustrated trying to determine what is allowed and what is not. Are the planes you are disqualifying only disqualified at yours and a few contests, or at all Canadian contests? If I bring one of the airplanes in question to your contest and it is disqualified, will it be disqualified at all the remaining Canadian contests? If the CD is not using the rules strictly to decide what is allowable, how will I know? I only have time to build one plane, I won't be able to build one for your contest, and one for the other contests. I think I will pass on combat for now. It seems you have a full contest already, and one less will not mean anything. It's just too confusing. I'm going to concentrate on IMAC, where the rules are clear, and the CD gives you the benefit of the doubt. Ronm
Mr Plank states "If it was me driving a long way, I'd make sure to bring Spits, or Mustangs or Foke Wulf's or Hurricanes... or any number of other planes people actually associate with WWII air combat, and thus are unambiguously within the rules. And I'd make sure I'd finished them in reasonably typical markings, and verified my wing span was unquestionably within the limits, and that both were supported by 3 views and pictures. "
I scratch built a coro Blackburn Firebrand mk ll, with 1/12 scale fuse and tail and wing around 109% at 56". It was not a plane popularly associated with air combat such as the Hurricane, but was designed and built under British specs to be a fleet fighter then morphed into a torpedo bomber and fighter. It was a single seater with forward firing guns. Will this plane be allowed?
My rational for building a bigger plane was partially a result of my research into the coro Mig 7 of which I had built several. I wanted 3 view documentation to have on hand when entering contests as a result of all the concern of what was scale and what wasn't last year. I found one text Shavrov's Russian Aircraft 1939 to 1945 and found the reference to the MIG 7. The 3 view drawings are of a different plane than the coro MIG 7. The coro Mig 7 appears to be a Mig 3 with a bigger wing. In light of the criteria above shouldn't the coro Mig 7 be excluded? Will it be?
We request the “open” sanction of this event be cancelled, and it be re-sanctioned as a “closed” or “invitational” event. We also request that the event not be eligible for the R/C Combat “Canadian National Point System” as like the RCCA, the CNPS requires the event to be “Open to all pilots”, and this event has proven not to be so. Finally, we ask that the Contest Director be warned about running similar events in the future, and that he be directed to read the rules in a more thorough fashion, thus better understanding the event that he is running.
Given the above reasoning, and the recent rules changes approved at the AGM, does it not appear that there is a more political agenda behind the rules changes? This agenda would be to restrict the planes so that “outsiders” would either not compete, or build one or two “special aircraft” just for these events. The Author is building up to 12 aircraft to compete with in the USA. Why would I build a special one for Oakville? )
We thank you for your time and attention.
James “Jay” M Lawless III
Troy, MI USA
London, Ontario CAN
Donald M. Veres
St. Clair Shores, MI USA
Shelby, Twp. MI USA
Washington Twp., MI 48
MAAC Exec. response
May 6, 2004
Pilots directly affected by the below text
c/o Jay Lawless
Re: Protest of Onslaught Over Oakville
Dear Mr. Lawless:
Thank you for your comments and concerns in your letter of protest received on April 14, 2004 regarding the Onslaught Over Oakville R/C Scale Combat Competition. The concerns outlined in the protest were referred to the MAAC R/C Scale Combat Committee. The Committee's response to the protest was to support the original decision of the Contest Director regarding the aircraft models in question.
The MAAC Executive and Board rely upon the experience, expertise and knowledge of our Committee Chairmen and their members. In our board-centred organization we support the decisions and recommendations of our committees. The Executive accepts the decision of the R/C Scale Combat Committee and will not be taking any further action regarding this protest.
Model Aeronautics Association of Canada
|05-06-2004, 04:37 PM||#14|
RCC Junior Contributor
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: MI, USA
Total Props: 0
Not the issue!
There are folks South of the border who agree with them, hence the testing of 2548 with specifically identified aircraft.
When those rules are nailed down and published, we will know what we have to do to comply.
Not the issue!
What was at issue is a CD who is refusing to recognise the rules as they read for 2004, followed by failure of the MAAC executive to recognise that digression and enforce their own rules, based on a recommendation from the very people supporting that violation - namely the combat committee. They were very unlikely to agree with our protest as that would have shown their error. I see this as a direct conflict of interest - too bad an impartial (non-combat) MAAC official did not evaluate the reality of the situation.
Reclassification of the event in question to a "closed" or "invitational" event and removal from CNPS eligibility would be enforcement of those rules. As would revocation of the CD's status as he is violating the agreement he signed to enforce all MAAC rules.
And for RCHOLIC
Secretary-Radio Control Club of Detroit
RCCA member #622
|05-06-2004, 07:14 PM||#15|
I am: Boolean21
Join Date: Sep 2002
Total Props: 56
A quote from the President of the RCCA
From another forum (Flightlines) in reply to the rhetoric there I think Mr. Melancon has summed it up quite well
|05-06-2004, 08:15 PM||#16|
Join Date: Mar 2004
Total Props: 0
Re: A quote from the President of the RCCA
|05-06-2004, 09:52 PM||#17|
RCC Supreme Contributor
I am: JLA
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Moncton, NB
Feedback: 8 / 100%
Total Props: 3
Re: A quote from the President of the RCCA
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|