R/C Naval Combat

I used to strongly urge new members to buy a used ship. I stopped a couple of years ago when it was pointed out that everyone who had done so over the last ten years had a bad experience. My experience was better than most - the ship was almost destroyed by shipping but once repaired was a nice ship. In many cases the ships were basically compliant with the rules for rib spacing, etc. However, almost without exception the ships were complete disasters of construction quality and/or repair. Almost none of them were serviceable. Most were not even worth repairing.

What might be a good path forward is this: have each club volunteer a member (presumably a TO) to be part of a BGCWI ship auditing board. This board would set the current standards for describing and photographing ships. When a member wants to sell a ship (or just show it off) they have the local BGCWI Ship Audit Board member document and photograph the ship and post it to a standard location. The audit needs not worry about if the ship is 'compliant' as much as what the ship actually is. However, there could be a 'Compiles with BGCWI Rules' rating as well.

This does several things:

1. Buyers will no who audited the ship and that that person, and the BGCWI organization's, reputation are behind that audit instead of some member who may be getting out of the hobby anyway.
2. Ships will be clearly and consistently documented so that there are no surprises. This means sellers don't have to worry about buyers claiming they misrepresented their ships; Clubs don't have to worry about unscrupulous sellers making their club look bad; Buyers have less worry about a nasty shock when the ship arrives
3. Because the audit has input from each club (through board members) it will be certain to cover all the differences between the clubs. This means that the buy is protected against cases where the ship is ok in the other club but not theirs. Presumably the audit board would have placed an item on the audit to cover that case. If not the member has a person to complain to and have it corrected in the future.
4. It provides an immediate benefit for all clubs - but especially for those that participate on the audit board

I would gladly participate in something like this and I think our entire club (even those so tired of inter-club politics) would as well.

I like what your saying. I really like the idea of an inter club audit board that can keep track of what issues actually are problems when transfering a ship from one club to another. Perhaps the audit board could produce a set of check sheets for transfers between different pairs of clubs. They would just be lists of things that the auditor needs to pay extra attention to.

I wonder if it should be someone other than the Tech Officer. for the following reasons:

• The TO is used to inspecting ships based on his own clubs bias, and special rules.
• The TO has inspected this ship in the past and may assume that nothing has changed.
• TO's may be a little overworked already. Another responsibility may not be welcom
• A new set of eyes is always a good thing. That is what will be inspecting thee ship when it arrive at it's new home.

Just putting this up for thought. Ther may be reasons th TO may be a good choice in some instances.

Terry

Posted By mabgfounder on 13 Aug 2009 05:22 PM
I think it would be up to each club to decide who to send.

You're right of course. I was thinking of it as more of a recomendation.

Terry

Posted By Keri Morgret on 26 Aug 2009 06:03 PM
We are working on the placard, am not sure if we'll have serial number or not, what can be pre-printed, and what will be hand-written at the fiberglass shop. We'd probably put the card on an inside wall rather than the bottom, since I think the bottom of the hull is more likely to get covered up.

Keri
http://www.strikemodels.com

While it may become covered if it is in the keel, placing it on the side may put it at risk of being damaged or removed when windows are cut.  It's much less likely that it would be removed from the bottom of the hull.

If BGCWI can provide for a centralized entity to represent the collective of clubs where public information is concerned, that could yield a more efficient distribution of information.  Making big gun rules somewhat more homogeneous while fostering r&d and individual club testing of experimental/trial rule sets would facilitate more collaboration.  One key function could be to compile the results of battles conducted with modified rules and/or "new technology" so that a database of reports documenting how each idea does or doesn't work.  That would certainly help some to avoid attempting to reinvent the wheel if something has already been found to be incessently inappropriate or impractical across the board. 
In this way, an initial rule set could be modeled on the old big gun rule set framework, allowing each club to sustain their existing deviations from the common rules for the period necessary to document them and allow others to ascertain their applicability to other regions.

 On the flip side, establishing and maintaining a master ship registry, including dates when the ship was specifically inspected for compliance to specific rule stes would certainly go a long way for a lot of people.  It could ultimately help to establish a means of valuing individual ships in case of more frequent transactions

Posted By Keri Morgret on 27 Aug 2009 03:29 PM
Thanks for the ideas, hadn't thought as far as the cutting out of the windows. We may need to search more for a card that would work, as right now the one place we know about sells them in a business card size.

If it weren't for the small sizes of all the ships I have simultaneously on the ways (Z-25, Orfey-class destroyer, and a Mogador-class), I probably would have adopted dog tags, epoxied along the centerline of the keel as identification.  At the least, in the event a ship were to be unrecovered, it might allow for future identification of the "wreck" if it were to turn up later.

 

What about on the stern?

Imprinted on the outside or plated on the inside?