RTWR 2012: A Purloined Letter

MM · February 1st, 2012, 13:14

It has come to our attention that a certain purloined letter may be of interest. It seems a good idea to make it available to all.
A copy is available here: http://www.mediafire.com/?5ufj82cgyzf21dz
--M

**warchild** · February 2nd, 2012, 03:01

Considering that the actual rules will not be known until the day before the race, I tend to lean towards believing that this letter is little more than a red herring. What brings me to think of this is not only the lack of any military type jets being included in the "approved" list, but also the following statement.
""Also legal are all otherwise eligible realistically-modeled aircraft with a maximum KTAS of less than 350 kts.""
Connecting that statement to the statement regarding the twelve leg limit for "thouroughbreds" would mean that for the remaining fifty to seventy five legs, you would be flying P-40s or slower. I simply cannot believe that AVSim or any other team will sit still for such an edict. Even more-so, the declaration that at least one team must disable their autopilots. Such a declaration goes against the very nature of the equality that is built into the race rules, and is therefore, to put it mildly, a bunch of malarkey.
We at SOH are the developers, testers and major enthusiasts behind most of the aircraft listed and unlisted, and they know this. It seems quite obvious to me that they would attempt to throw us off by producing such a work as this appears to be, and making it conveniently ( or not so conveniently ) available where we could get our hands on it for no other reason than to put our panties in a ruffle.
I'd recommend ignoring it and prepare for the race as normal. when the actual rules are posted, we'll know the truth of the matter..

of note, MRC Investigations is a company located in Wheaton Illinois, which specializes in Security Loss Control and litigation support.
VAR Publications as noted in the header, is either the worlds greatest formality error or an allusion to a German company dealing primarily with the re-cycling of aluminium ( yes, i spelled it correctly ). Their website can be found here http://www.var-alurecycling.de/en/ve...likationen.php. As you can see, they are German and deal with metals. Why on earth would they be publishing anything about flight simulation?? and why in the world would they hire a company from wheaton Illinois??

I will say though that the letter is a very well done piece of fiction... Nice reading

Pam

**Spookster67** · February 2nd, 2012, 07:55

Originally Posted by warchild

I'd recommend ignoring it and prepare for the race as normal.

With all due respect Pam, I would recommend precisley the opposite. I like the way these draft rules sound, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if the actual rules when published include almost everything in this draft. The race committee has listened to the feedback on the consultation, and acted accordingly.

We now have a whitelist containing a bunch of five well known aircraft that can be flown for only 12 legs, and a "second tier" of 35 aircraft from which we can pick to fly the remaining "prop" legs. Of those, 13 are freeware, so still plenty of chance for any pilot to find something they're happy with.

As for the jets, no military won't be to everyone's liking, but it's a special theme of the 2012 race. Maybe next year it's no civilian jets?

So my suggestion is that pilots should be practising in the whitelist aircraft, and any of the Boeing and Airbus tubes. That's what we'll be flying come race day. Oh yes, and not forgetting the Vin Fiz!!

**crashaz** · February 2nd, 2012, 08:46

I like the white list.... we will spend time flying only those aircraft we know are on the list... and not spending time looking to add aircraft that are the "hot" planes. More of a focus on flying then machine.

**MaddogK** · February 2nd, 2012, 08:50

Heh, smells more like an intentional committee leak to gauge enthusiasm. Did you see all the Hornets for FSX listed as normal race A/C but none for FS9 ? Guess us FS9'ers will be runnin Sea Fury's, eh ?

MRC investigations

**Great Ozzie** · February 2nd, 2012, 08:53

Yep... agreed Martin,

The only "red herring" here is Mike's artistic "je ne sais quoi" presentation, which is meant to transport us from the doldrums of everyday life into the spirit of the race itself.

Other than the artistry and the "uncertainty involved with unofficial and incomplete documents"... we should take this completely seriously.

And the autopilot thingy... that seems to be for just one leg for Team Flight commemorating the Vin Fiz challenge (time to bust out some Welch's Grape Juice and Seltzer). Here's to hoping the proverbial "crash landing" is a de rigueur part of the event.

Now if we could just find Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, ? and a couple missing appendices... we'll be off to the races. :-P

**Great Ozzie** · February 2nd, 2012, 09:00

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Did you see all the Hornets for FSX listed as normal race A/C but none for FS9 ? Guess us FS9'ers will be runnin Sea Fury's, eh ?

Oh for the love of Pete...

C'mon MaddogK... you still have your fast AlphaSim Hornet that has been around for ages...

All the Hornets for FSX?

It is essentially just one... (not talking of different liveries or tanks)... all by the same guy. So now us "FSX Only" guys have a very nice race model of the Hornet this year... which has not been true for years past.

***Willy*** · February 2nd, 2012, 09:03

My two cents is that one would be well served to pay close attention to the letter.

Too bad that Lockheed wasn't in on the jetliner deal. I've got a nice TriStar in the hanger.

I did think that the mention of an aluminum recycling company was a nice touch. Wonder what the going rate is for scrap aircraft grade?

**MaddogK** · February 2nd, 2012, 09:09

Originally Posted by Great Ozzie

Oh for the love of Pete...

C'mon MaddogK... you still have your fast AlphaSim Hornet that has been around for ages...

All the Hornets for FSX?

It is essentially just one... (not talking of different liveries or tanks)... all by the same guy. So now us "FSX Only" guys have a very nice race model of the Hornet this year... which has not been true for years past.

Aye, the leg limited PAYWARE hornet.

**Great Ozzie** · February 2nd, 2012, 09:30

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Aye, the leg limited PAYWARE hornet.

I'm sorry... I am still laughing...

I bought it almost 2 years ago to the day... And I don't even use it since it has "visual issues" (prop problems etc)... so I get to enjoy having in my hangar, which if you amortize is like pennies a day.

So it's only $20 bucks... buy it and live a little. And as far as the "leg limited" the guys here (SOH Race Team) I would certainly describe as "swell" so I bet you could easily vie for one of those HP slots.

Look... rules "like these" are sure to cause a little chafing... we gotta forget all that... put in a request or two for this plane or that... and enjoy the race for what it is this year. Next year is sure to be different too.

Edit: I have to add it may not be used at all (the FSX one)... it's all going to depend on the rules, how "different" it is now with the authorized SOH aircraft.cfg (the released acft.cfg blew away the Alphasim model)... and... well... mood at the time I (or whoever) goes to fly. And that all assumes no network problems... no computer problems... etc.

***Dangerousdave26*** · February 2nd, 2012, 09:38

Originally Posted by Great Ozzie

All the Hornets for FSX?

It is essentially just one...

Not true.

Each version is a slightly different FM to deliver the proper speed at critical altitude. The F.1 and the F.3 are the fastest with the F.20 and NF.21 being 11 and 16 kts slower respectively. The difference in speed was because of the cost of navalizing the F.20 and adding the radar unit and operator of the NF.21.

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Aye, the leg limited PAYWARE hornet.

FS9 Hornet can achieve 440 ktas.

F.1 and F.3 Hornet can only achieve 394 ktas

Because it is way off base and is really a Hot Rod. It should be on the Thoroughbred list. As well as the WOP P-47M/N which is missing from the White List completely.

**Great Ozzie** · February 2nd, 2012, 10:01

Originally Posted by Dangerousdave26

Not true.

Each version is a slightly different FM to deliver the proper speed at critical altitude. The F.1 and the F.3 are the fastest with the F.20 and NF.21 being 11 and 16 kts slower respectively. The difference in speed was because of the cost of navalizing the F.20 and adding the radar unit and operator of the NF.21.

I appreciate your work Dave (and Tako_Kichi & Fliger747) who came up with the .cfg's. Thanks... and thanks for the specific info.

**MaddogK** · February 2nd, 2012, 10:05

Originally Posted by Great Ozzie

I'm sorry... I am still laughing...

I bought it almost 2 years ago to the day... And I don't even use it since it has "visual issues" (prop problems etc)... so I get to enjoy having in my hangar, which if you amortize is like pennies a day.

So am I, you wont fly it because it has visual issues.

...I guess I should be crying as ALL the 'thoroughbreds' are FS9 aircraft, so now all the FSX heavy teams now have more to offest the fact that FSX is crash happy. I can hardly wait to bust someone flying a FSX ported P-51H this year.

Best of luck to ya.

***Dangerousdave26*** · February 2nd, 2012, 10:16

Originally Posted by MaddogK

I can hardly wait to bust someone flying a FSX ported P-51H this year.

Remember what I said earlier. Don't read anything into this that is not explicitly stated. The Referance to FS9 is the sim the model was made for and not the sim it can be used in. The P-51H used in FSX will count as one instance of the 12 allowed.

I appreciate your work Dave (et al.) who came up with the .cfg's. Thanks... and thanks for the specific info

Read the readme and the comments in the aircraft.cfg files. It all covered there.

***Moses03*** · February 2nd, 2012, 10:30

From the neither here or there department. Some comments about Vin Fiz grape soda circa 1911:

"Tastes like a cross between river water (sludge) and horse slop"

"You have to sneak up on it to get it down."

"It has a laxative effective"

They still bottle it today but with a different recipe.

**MaddogK** · February 2nd, 2012, 12:56

Heh, I knew it: These are the unofficial 'special rules' for this year, as confirmed by appollosmith in flightsims forums:

It seems this conversation is moot based on the now-released (yet not entirely finalized) special rules for this year. I suppose you could submit any of these aircraft for consideration by the committee, but there's plenty of good aircraft on the list to choose from. Everyone should pick maybe one "Thoroughbred" class aircraft, one "Normal" aircraft, and one Airbus or Boeing... and then fly the heck out of these in the next 3 weeks.

***srgalahad*** · February 2nd, 2012, 14:40

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Heh, I knew it: These are the unofficial 'special rules' for this year, as confirmed by appollosmith in flightsims forums:

That may be what apollosmith (Jared) said, but it might be better to wait and hear from vcaptmattsmith (Matt) who is the Chairman of the Executive Committee.
All sorts of things get posted before the event, but only the Official General and Special Rules (and attached NOTAMS, FAQ's and Appendices) govern the race in any given year.

**MaddogK** · February 2nd, 2012, 17:24

Originally Posted by srgalahad

That may be what apollosmith (Jared) said, but it might be better to wait and hear from vcaptmattsmith (Matt) who is the Chairman of the Executive Committee.
All sorts of things get posted before the event, but only the Official General and Special Rules (and attached NOTAMS, FAQ's and Appendices) govern the race in any given year.

ya, prolly right. Confirmation ignored and OP propaganda dismissed.

...tho it is curious that this thread is stickied.

**apollosmith** · February 7th, 2012, 06:29

Originally Posted by MaddogK

Heh, I knew it: These are the unofficial 'special rules' for this year, as confirmed by appollosmith in flightsims forums:

Just to be clear, I am not a committee member and do not dictate the rules. This was simply a recommendation to our team members based on what we think will *likely* be a portion of this year's 'special rules'.

I have no more or less information than anyone else. We did ask and get confirmation that the "FS9 or FSX" column in the aircraft column is not restrictive - in other words, you can fly the FS9 aircraft in FSX, but ONLY if there have been no critical configuration changes. For example, you're probably aware of a recently released "Cobra in the Skies" port (I use this term loosely) of Dave Copley's P-38 for FSX that has several modification to the flight model making it VERY inaccurate. This would clearly be illegal, yet one would likely not know this unless they scrutinize and compare the configuration files. In short, we should be very careful if the aircraft is not specifically on the list (and if it's not, it should probably be submitted for consideration per Mike's recent proposal).

I think these rules greatly simplify things, but we also realize that aircraft and flights will be closely scrutinized.

**MaddogK** · February 7th, 2012, 14:28

No worries, I've dismissed not only your 'approval' of the letter, but the entire letter as propaganda until officially blessed by the committee. As for the 'white list' I plan to protest anything not specifically on the list for the respective sims (unless otherwise noted by the official committee posting of the said letter) as I can trust in the decency an honor of my fellow pilots not to cheat as much as I can lob an elephant into the orbit of the moon.

Experience has that effect on some.

**apollosmith** · February 8th, 2012, 11:28

Originally Posted by MaddogK

I can trust in the decency an honor of my fellow pilots not to cheat as much as I can lob an elephant into the orbit of the moon.

If I can speak honestly, I think it a bit unfortunate that this is your impression of the race and its participants. While there have been past events by all teams that have been questionable, I do not attribute these to outright indecency or dishonesty, but to either honest mistakes or creative strategy. One cannot know the mind of another. As in any event, the rules are made to provide structure, but also to be tested and, when violated, enforced.

I, for one, have the utmost respect for my competitors, teammates, and the committee. I certainly would not participate or find enjoyment in the event if I thought everyone participating was less than decent.

***Dangerousdave26*** · February 8th, 2012, 11:39

Originally Posted by apollosmith

If I can speak honestly, I think it a bit unfortunate that this is your impression of the race and its participants. While there have been past events by all teams that have been questionable, I do not attribute these to outright indecency or dishonesty, but to either honest mistakes or creative strategy. One cannot know the mind of another. As in any event, the rules are made to provide structure, but also to be tested and, when violated, enforced.

I, for one, have the utmost respect for my competitors, teammates, and the committee. I certainly would not participate or find enjoyment in the event if I thought everyone participating was less than decent.

I completely agree

***PRB*** · February 8th, 2012, 13:13

Originally Posted by apollosmith

If I can speak honestly, I think it a bit unfortunate that this is your impression of the race and its participants. While there have been past events by all teams that have been questionable, I do not attribute these to outright indecency or dishonesty, but to either honest mistakes or creative strategy. One cannot know the mind of another. As in any event, the rules are made to provide structure, but also to be tested and, when violated, enforced.

I, for one, have the utmost respect for my competitors, teammates, and the committee. I certainly would not participate or find enjoyment in the event if I thought everyone participating was less than decent.

This is how I look at it as well. Wouldn't be much point in playing if I thought people were cheating.

***Willy*** · February 8th, 2012, 16:56

Originally Posted by apollosmith

If I can speak honestly, I think it a bit unfortunate that this is your impression of the race and its participants. While there have been past events by all teams that have been questionable, I do not attribute these to outright indecency or dishonesty, but to either honest mistakes or creative strategy. One cannot know the mind of another. As in any event, the rules are made to provide structure, but also to be tested and, when violated, enforced.

I, for one, have the utmost respect for my competitors, teammates, and the committee. I certainly would not participate or find enjoyment in the event if I thought everyone participating was less than decent.

I agree 100%.

MD, we've flown together on and off for several years now and I consider you a friend, but I think you're way offbase here.

**RedGreen** · February 8th, 2012, 20:23

Originally Posted by apollosmith

If I can speak honestly, I think it a bit unfortunate that this is your impression of the race and its participants. While there have been past events by all teams that have been questionable, I do not attribute these to outright indecency or dishonesty, but to either honest mistakes or creative strategy. One cannot know the mind of another. As in any event, the rules are made to provide structure, but also to be tested and, when violated, enforced.

I, for one, have the utmost respect for my competitors, teammates, and the committee. I certainly would not participate or find enjoyment in the event if I thought everyone participating was less than decent.

Very well said, Jared.