Labeling those who don't support a National Flying Site as "Not taking the sport seriously" is illogical. There are many, many ways that participants can help promote the sport without the need for a national flying site.

We just had a fly-in in conjunction with a local festival, and we introduced a number of people to the sport- people who had never seen RC aircraft fly and heretofore had considered them playthings.

To those people (Who might have a .00001% chance of ever visiting the Muncie site- We're talking a small rural community in Georgia) we do take the sport seriously. I would sincerely doubt that many of them think that folks up there in Muncie take it as seriously. Perspective is everything.

Ever think about this? If Muncie is required for growth of the sport, how did it grow before Muncie? Has the growth rate changed significantly since Muncie?

The opinion that the cost/benefit relationship of a national flying site to the sport is questionable is logical and serious. Perhaps even more serious that simply accepting the statement without analysis. In the long run, Muncie may do more harm than good.

A different opinion


Bob