Free Flight

[George Kennie]

Steve,
I don't think you misread it as I drew the same conclusion as you did. Makes it
a little easier for me to understand the reasons for the widely varying opinions
and interpretations derived by the pattern  community when reading the Rulebook.

RC Steve Sterling wrote:

> I read it a little different. I thought he was giving the free flight and
> control line folks (and us) a shot across the bow. Because they are only 10%
> of members, they wouldn't be given 50% of the magazine space. The would put
> more into sport flyers. Maybe I misread it.
>
> I have never understood MA. Virtually 100% of their contstruction articles
> have been the reserection of some old ancient-looking design, mostly .40
> size or under, done by some equally aged fossil (no disrespect intended for
> our modern thinking seniors in THIS SIG). These are followed by some equally
> non-relevant article on how to keep your Kraft or Heathkit servos going
> another year. Engine articles about some 1930's museum piece or how to keep
> that 1950's Fox in top shape. And the monthly dept. articles-- free-flight
> scale, free-flight long wing, CL scale, CL Aerobatic, CL carrier, CL
> combat -- all totaling 10% of the interest (that number seems high to me).
>
> Even as a sport pilot (prior to pattern), I always turned to the Precision
> Aerobatics monthly section first. The articles written by Rick Allison were
> usually relevant to my sport flying-- how to fly a straight line, use
> rudder, proper loop, build on previous skills. I've heard the sport flyers
> in my club discuss Erick Henderson's articles on the various "combo" ARF's
> that work for sport and Pattern, and several have bought airplanes based on
> those articles, so I know he is read also. Most of our sport flyers (90% of
> our club also) aren't interested in the competition of Pattern, but would
> like to do a better slow roll or Cuban 8.
>
> MA really does need to get more relevant to the times-- more devoted to
> MODERN sport models, a whole lot less on FF and CL. But if they did a survey
> on what articles are currently read 1st or 2nd, I think at least 70% of the
> sport pilots would say Precision Aerobatics or Scale Aerobatics.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Tomanek, Wojtek
> Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 11:52 AM
> To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
> Subject: Free Flight
>
> Ok, have you all read the latest Model Aviation editorial about how the free
> flight and control line folks constitute 10% of all modelers and thus should
> get increased attention in the magazine and other SIGs (including precision
> aerobatics) will have to give up monthly columns to bimonthly ones.  I
> belong to three clubs with approximately 80, 120, and 160 members.  Very few
> may have a free flight glider/plane but have never flown it at the field,
> same goes for control line.   If you look at their NATs the same names
> appear in most of the categories and even then the whole listing of names is
> shorter than the Masters list form the pattern NATs.
>
> What gives .............................. ??
>
> my $0.02 for today
> Wojtek
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, send a message to
> # discussion-request at nsrca.org
> # and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
> #



=====================================
# To be removed from this list, send a message to 
# discussion-request at nsrca.org
# and put leave discussion on the first line of the body.
#