RCP CYCLE 2018-2019
The RCP process for changing rules in the NAR Sporting Code is defined in the sporting code under section “D” of the appendix. The process can be reviewed online at https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/rules-revision-process/ the cycle for proposed changes runs on a one year cycle. A dedicated online RCP Forum for proposals to be reviewed, commented on, and finally voted on is available for all NAR members.
Eight proposals were received for this cycle. Proposals require a 51% vote for the proposal to be passed. Proposals that do pass will become a part of the Sporting Code effective for the new contest year on August 4, 2019, but they have no bearing on NARAM-61.
I would like to remind everyone that the opportunity for you to submit a RCP is as simple as writing up your idea or submitting it online at the link you can find at: https://www.nar.org/contest-flying/us-model-rocket-sporting-code/us-model-rocket-sporting-code-rules-revision-process-form/
From: Don Carson, NAR# 11069
Email: fulldec2001@yahoo.com
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change:
This change reduces the maximum height of the aft part of the entry (on its launcher) from 3 meters to 2 meters above the ground.
State Logic and Intent of Change: This rule generally limits the length of piston launchers. The 2017 Sporting Code increased the allowable length from 2 m to 3 m (~10 feet). Studies have shown that longer pistons do increase motor performance and contest results seem to support this. This has led to the development of large, elaborate piston launchers upwards of 10 feet tall, or more. The development, transport, and use of this class of ground support equipment is a significant investment in time, money and logistics. The current rule can make events more about the launcher than the rocket. The intent of this change is to limit launchers to a more manageable size so that more people can and will participate in competition.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records: This change is intended to increase participation in competition by reducing a significant barrier to participation. The 2017 Sporting Code increased the allowable length from 2 m to 3 m (~10 feet). The design, construction, transport, and use of piston launchers upwards of 10 feet tall represents a significant barrier to participation in competition. Even a smaller size piston is a complexity that can intimidate beginning competitors. If, in order to be competitive, a modeler needs to build and transport a piston launcher of this size, many will not be interested. Additionally, many serious competitors now fly commercial airlines to contests, particularly NARAMs. The current rule greatly impacts those modelers. The whole sea change in the USMRSC was to encourage and increase participation in competitive model rocketry. This was one change that ran completely against that intent and needs to be undone.
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear (include section#):
5.5 Launcher Height.
No entry may be launched with its aft most part more than 2 meters above the ground.
From: Chad Ring, NAR# 50652
Email: ring@psci.net
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: Eliminate showing altimeters at check in, as they will be seen post flight anyway. Syncs up with no motor check in.
State Logic and Intent of Change: No reason to show altimeter preflight, as they will be seen post flight. Makes check in a smoother and quicker process.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records: Reduce the wait time for check in and task load for check in officer.
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear (include section#):
20.2.2 Check-In Procedure
The model of the altimeter will be noted on the competitor’s flight card. The safety check officer may request the “owner’s manual” for the altimeter if any questions arise concerning its operation or post flight readout.
From: Chad Ring, NAR# 50652
Email: ring@psci.net
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: Sync up provided timers with current NARAM practice.
State Logic and Intent of Change: State that one timer is provided at NARAM and addition may be from either meet or individual.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records: None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear (include section#):
30.1 Timers
In all events for which a time-of-flight value must be scored, one or more timers with stopwatches shall be stationed in a timing area(s) adjacent to the range head and shall not leave the designated timing area(s) in order to keep the entry in sight. NARAM will provide one timer for each contest flight. Additional timers may be provided by the meet or the contestant. Timer(s) may not use optical aids other than sunglasses and/or eyeglasses to correct to normal vision.
From: Chad Ring, NAR# 50652
Email: ring@psci.net
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: Break out Mission and General Flight into subcategories for Classic Model scoring.
State Logic and Intent of Change: Much confusion and rescoring occurred at NARAM-60 due to poor wording and Mission points being combined in the same scoring section as General Flight. This will simplify scoring, while keeping a point emphasis on General Flight over that of Mission in this one event.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records: None
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear (include section#):
55.7 Flight Characteristics: 300 points
55.7.1 Mission:
100 points – Mission points are awarded for the entry’s characteristics that mimic the operation of the classic rocket kit prototype during flight (i.e., clustering, staging, glide recovery).
55.7.2 General Flight:
200 points – General flight points are awarded for proper operation of the entry during flight, including launch, lack of misfires, stability, recovery, and lack of damage on landing. No consideration should be given to staging or prototype-like flight characteristics, as they are covered under mission points. However, if the general flight performance of the entry is adversely affected by the failure of one or more of these aspects, general flight points may be deducted.
From: Mark B Bundick NAR# 19250L Email: mbundick@comcast.net
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: I am proposing a change to Classic Model to permit entry of models whose designs have been published in a magazine or NAR Section Newsletter. This change will expand the potential universe of models available for the event.
State the Logic of the Change: Classic Model has been welcomed by competitors as a way to relive the past history of our hobby and to introduce younger members to that history. While there are certainly many kits which meet the event criteria, there are equally interesting models which were not kitted, but were built and flown from plans in commercial and NAR published magazines and section newsletters. These models deserve an equal opportunity to be built, flown and shown off to competitors and members.
Effect if any on Current Competition and NAR Records: There will be no impact to manufacturers, required skill levels from competitors, model judging time or range operations time from this proposed change. Competitors will have opportunity to build new models, if they choose, or may continue to build and fly Classic Models that were commercially available kits. The change may induce more competitors to attempt Classic Model using their favorite magazine or newsletter plan.
Exact Wording for the Rule Revision as it should appear:
55.1 Scope Classic Model comprises a single event that emphasizes craftsmanship while remembering the historic legacy of model rocketry. The purpose of this competition is to produce a flying replica of a classic model rocket kit or published model rocket plan. The model must have been available for sale in kit form or published as a plan in a magazine or NAR Section newsletter prior to 1990 and the builder must provide documentation to support this. Models that are still in production can be entered in this event, including models that are reproductions of classic kits however, entries must be built and finished to represent a version of the model available for sale as a kit prior to 1990. The entry may be an up or down sized version of the original model.
From: Vern Richardson NAR# 91272 Email: vern.rich@gmail.com
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: If a division only has one contestant, then they would not compete in another division, but would get a first place if and only they have a qualified flight.
State the Logic of the Change: Since the mixing only applies at NARAM now, then there isn’t a real need to mix divisions. Mixing penalizes the group that has multiple contestants by bumping down those who get beat by the individual contestant.
Effect if any on Current Competition and NAR Records: None on records. But, would be beneficial to the group that has multiple contestants.
Exact Wording for the Rule Revision as it should Appear:
9.6 NARAM Minimum Entries An entry must make an official attempt before points may be awarded in an event.
Add rule 8.3.4 Competition Divisions shall not be combined.
From: Trip Barber, NAR# 4322 Email: ahbarber@alum.mit.edu
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: Prohibit the use of piston or other pressurization-type launching devices that use exhaust gases from the rocket motor to increase its launch velocity and altitude. This restriction has been implemented in international (FAI) competition for altitude-type events starting in 2019.
State Logic and Intent of Change: Years of R&D reports and development have led to the use of increasingly sophisticated piston-type launchers in competition by the most experienced and advanced competitors. These devices substantially improve the flight performance of rockets launched from them. This “arms race” has reached near-ridiculous proportions, with long elaborate devices being erected on the field. This is profoundly discouraging to other competitors, particularly new ones, who do not have the experience or resources to create and use such devices and see that if they do not use them they have little chance of success. If we want to spread the popularity and accessibility of model rocket competition, we need to level the playing field by making events a competition between flight vehicles, not launch systems. I expect experienced competitors who are engaged in this piston-launcher “arms race” will oppose this proposal because they think that with the next step up in their launcher’s complexity they can win. Rocket competition should be about flight vehicle (“rocket”) performance, not launcher performance.
Effect, if any, on current competition and NAR records: Many performance records have been set with use of piston launchers, but they are not specifically identified as such. It will be difficult to exceed these records in future without use of piston launchers, but there is no reason to retire any existing records if this proposal is enacted.
Exact wording for the rule revision as it should appear (include section#):
5.6 Launching Device A launching device must not impart to the entry any velocity or change of momentum by any means. The entry must free- fly from the device.
From: Jennifer Ash NAR # 61415 Email: bubbles43@gmail.com
Type of Proposal: Regular
Brief Summary of the Proposed Change: This change will prevent the same NRC event to be held 2 years in a row. This will not prevent the NARAM CD from picking the same event for his/her additional events for NARAM (i.e. Scale, or R&D), but the event cannot be an NRC selection.
State the Logic of the Change: There are 8 different events in the NRC list (13.1.4). When you include the engine class, you have 22 different combinations to choose 6 events for the NRC. Why repeat an event from one year to the next? A model can be used for different events, so that should not be the deciding factor. Example: C Egg Altitude can be held one year, B Egg Altitude can be held the next year, but C Egg altitude could not (Engine class can change).
Effect if any on Current Competition and NAR Records: None
Exact Wording for the Rule Revision as it should Appear:
Section # 13.1.2 Event Selection NRC events will be selected as follows:
- The Contest Board shall select four (4) NRC events.
- The NARAM Contest Director shall select two (2) NRC event
- The same NRC event and motor class cannot be flown in consecutive years