RCP 2021-010
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
7 Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
- Home
- Join NAR
- Site Map
- Contact Us
- My Membership
- About NAR
- American Rocketry Challenge
- Model Rocket Info
- High Power Rocketry
- Educational Resources
- Find a Launch
- Local Clubs
- Insurance Questions/Claims
- Safety
- Rocket Motor Information
- Contest Flying – NAR Competition
- National Scoreboard
- US Team Selection Scoreboard
- Register an NAR Launch
- Competition Results Entry
- Team Registration
- Teams List
- Contest Events
- Competition Meets
- International Competition
- Competition Guide
- U.S. Model Rocket Sporting Code
- Rules Revision Process
- US National Model Rocket Performance Records
- Sport Rocketry Magazine
- Member Resources
- Website Fixes
- Donate
- What’s My NAR Number?
- Log out
High Power Rocket Certification
Design and Fly High Power Rocket Vehicles Learn MoreLocal Rocketry Clubs
Connect with Proven Rocketry Experts Find A Club TodayMembers-Only Forum
Engage in meaningful conversations about rocketry topics that matter. Get Connected!Sport Rocketry Magazine
Six 48 Page Issues a year with NAR Membership!
An NRC max time needs to be added to the table in section 33.5 for this engine class.Â
Inclusion of 5 NS Helicopter duration, would be supported for small field flying. With the no return rule, and relatively small size of the model, it would likely pose no safety issues within a municipality, and easily flown in a small field, park setting.
Again, I respectfully disagree with Dan’s premise, “it is clear more variety is needed.”
The evidence supporting this claims is…?
And I disagree with “…it should not be too much harder for recovery than A engine class” as well as… “In addition, it adds another 18mm event which will add variety and interest in NRC and NAR Competition.”
“Should not be too much harder” and that adding an 18mm H/D event will add “interest” to NRC competition is just conjecture on his part.
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 our adult competitors find more stimulating AND getting NRC credit for it. I will not support this RCP.
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 kids of any age interested is short sided. More options for events and to learn and enjoy should be a no brainer.
I’m not feeling the love on this one.
After flying 1/2A HD in NRC for a couple of years, I was genuinely surprised at how high the same models were going on A motors this year. As much as I would personally love to see more B-HD flown, I think that its inclusion would be a detriment to the NRC’s “all fields” approach to flying.
This event has already been driven to one option for flying, namely the 40mm FAI type HD. Adding a class with a bigger engine is not going to change the event.