Enter NAR login credentials for access.
Please enter your username or email address. This should be the same login you use for your NAR membership
12 Comments on RCP 2021-008
I like the idea. It might not be 'necessary', and there's merit in the contrary thoughts, but it does sound like fun, and it does fit the NRC goal of flyable on smaller fields. Definitely poses technical challenges, and even more for TARC members used to working as a larger team.
I agree with adding more events options to the NRC. NRC is not only for kids and to say that only a couple events is enough to keep even kids interested is short sided. More options for events and to learn and enjoy should be a no brainer. To say that this is only to keep mentors happy is also not valid again as we have seen many adults join in the events and want to get involved also. Nothing wrong with everyone enjoying this and having options to do so.Â Â
Data I found on DEL and SEL DQ rates:
|A Div||B Div||C Div||D Div|
|NARAM 52—E DEL ALT||43%||57%||68%||58%|
|NARAM 55—C DEL ALT||14%||6%||16%||14%|
|NARAM 57—E EL ALT||30%||21%||29%||29%|
|NARAM 59—B EL ALT||40%||0%||18%||27%|
|NARAM 60—C EL ALT||0%||57%||40%||26%|
|NARAM 61—C EL ALT||50%||0%||34%||38%|
No dual eggloft capsules are currently being sold. Â They used to exist, but no more.
Hi Steve. They could exist; I know of two current ways to make that a reality (no, not me.) :) Not sure if this passing could be an incentive for us to get capsules like this back. Anyway, not having a dual capsule is hardly a reason to not have the event. It doesn't have to be vac formed. TARC has no dual egg capsule and well, yeah. :)
I respectfully disagree with Dan's premise, "it is clear more variety is needed." I also disagree with, "This event is not that much harder than Single Eggloft altitude for new comers. In addition, it serves to attract TARC members who often fly 2 egg events."
The evidence supporting both of these claims is...?
The NRC and the events that constitute it are intended to allow younger members, particularly those from 7 -15, access to competition based on low-cost motors and simple airframes (all of which fly well on small fields) and to incentivize youth contest involvement through the immediate feedback provided by the Scoreboard.
IMO, the need for more variety is being expressed by the existing C and T members all of whom are not the target market of the NRC. If competitors want to fly events outside the current NRC list, there is nothing to stop them. But what is being sought here is the convenience of flying events that are more stimulating to the adult competitors AND getting NRC credit for it. I will not support this RCP.
I think a 20Ns dual event would be fine. I have concerns that there is only one manufacture of 10Ns motors that would be suitable for dual egg lofting and woe be it if a flier tries to fly it using a low thrust, long burn variant of the C6 motor that was once available.
Hi John. Not following you on the C6 'long burn' part. Expand? Also, I don't understand your concern saying there is only one suitable motor vendor. We have Estes and AT/Quest. C12 and C18 from latter. C11, C5, and if done right, C6 from former. This can't be a legit concern in 2022, when from 2002 until the introduction of the C11, C DED was an event, and I know it was flown multiple times on C6's. Now we have four more motor choices in the C5, C11, C12, and C18. Oh, and as Yoda would say... "No, there is another" :)