Weight Limit

Wed Nov 13 17:22:49 AKST 2002

Anybody read the NATS report in MA for IMAC. They barely got a few
participants in the 1st couple of classes. Like 5 total in Sportsman (like
our Intermediate).

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Thomas C. Weedon
Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 3:00 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Weight Limit

GeorgeF,
You are WAAAAY off base with your membership in IMAC. IMAC has less members
than we do. IMAA, repeat, IMAA has about 10,000 members. IMAA is NOT, repeat
NOT the same as IMAC!!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of GeorgeF.
Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:02 AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Weight Limit

A key point he made was the fact that IMAC is marketing itself to the Sport
Pilots.  And about 4-5 months ago I had mentioned on this forum about NSRCA
should do a better job marketing itself to the sport pilot.   But instead
of getting any meaningful feedback I just got a bunch of crap from the
NSRCA president.

I had offered suggestions but was pretty much told by the President that
"we're already doing that and I have a plan for the NSRCA".  However we
never did learn what that plan was....

It appears the NSRCA is trying to cater to the wrong group. We need to do a
better job of marketing our sport to the sport pilot which is a market
share of nearly 100,000 pilots.   The way I see it it appears the NSRCA is
trying to cater and market itself to the IMAC crowd whos market share is
only about 10,000 pilots.  What is wrong with this picture???   The
IMAC'ers already have a "special interest" in this hobby and don't need
another one (ie: pattern).   The sport pilot (guy boring holes in the sky
with their .40's, .60's and 1.20's) has yet to develop a "special
interest", it should be the job of the entire membership (including its
elected officials) to sway the sport pilot to our ranks.  I think it would
be easier to sway a sport pilot our way then it would be to sway an IMAC'er
our way.

George
"the thorn with a point to make"

At 10:16 AM 11/12/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>Larry..
>      Boy oh BOY...  I hope members do a hard read of what you posted. You
> address many of the issues that do stifle growth of pattern. I also
> walked many miles in those moccasins of no help or guidance from anyone
> and no list to learn from either. Others apparently have little or no
> idea of the obstacles some of us have to deal with just to get a plane up
> and working reliably. When you have local experience and expertise it
> becomes a whole lot easier. Making it more difficult or change the type
> of technology isn't going to stimulate pattern growth.  I look back at
> the change to 2 meter designs and how many insisted that the ole 60 size
> would still be competitive and a viable way to fly. Granted I was
> eventually able to win a couple of contests but best I place at the Nats
> when it wasn't breezy was 7th.  When the wind was blowing I was scoring
> in the 20th plus place. The bouncy around was getting me nailed by the
> judges even though the book says that they aren't to do that. Look at how
> many left when it went to turnaround.
>     Very well thought out and worded post.
>
>      Del K. Rykert
>      AMA - 8928
>      NSRCA - 473
>      Kb2joi - General
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:jed241 at email.msn.com>Larry Diamond
>To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
>Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 7:50 AM
>Subject: Re: Weight Limit
>
>Keith,
>
>There are many differing opinions on the topic...Here is mine...
>
> >>recruiting new members, growing pattern
>
>If you look at the survey on RC Universe, I believe it confirm what some
>already knew. Participation is lacking because of local interest as the #
>1 hitter...So, ask why is pattern not popular...One conclusion could be
>made that, to be competitive, you need a good plane with good equipment.
>This cost much more than an average sport flyer wishes to put out.
>
>There are some that say IMAC don't seem to have this problem. I'm not an
>IMAC'r, but I believe they are doing a great job in marketing there sport
>to the average sport flyer.
>
>Flying fields may get to be an issue with larger planes. Some fields may
>start to limit size that we fly contest at. If this happens it would be a
>direct hit on local interest. I am about 150 miles to the closest contest
>over the last couple years. Hopefully this next year can be different.
>This has been part of the reason I have not been attending contest. Family
>Time Vs Contest Time. The closest Pattern fliers to my area is 2 or 3
>hours away. By nature, I'm a very competitive person. Golf was very
>frustrating to me and I couldn't get my scores below 90. I sold everything
>and vowed to never to play golf again....I forgot to mention that my score
>is for 9 holes <VBG>...Ever try to teach yourself something you don't
>know, and then try to set up a plane to fly well which you don't have that
>level of experience...It's taken two years to learn what I have. Mostly
>from this discussion group.
>
> >>advancing designs and technology
>
>The material that we see in pattern today are very light weight material
>and perhaps stronger. Engines are bigger and lighter with more HP.
>Titanium Push Rods, CF push rods, CF/ Kevlar Kits Vs Fiberglass. How many
>of those technologies would have made it in pattern if Size and Weight was
>not a limiting factor.
>
>I work in the Electronics Industry and manage very cutting edge products
>that push the limits of manufacturing. This leads to new ways of
>manufacturing. I managed a program a couple of years ago where we put a
>.018 inch cube electronic device on a .008 inch PCB board at over 100K
>assemblies per month. This would not have been necessary if the size of
>the product was increased. Comparing size and performance of electronics
>could be compared to advancing technology in Pattern Plane design. We
>would not be where we are today if cost and space was not a concern for
>electronic consumers. Everyone would have a PC the size of a closet and
>working on a 286 Turbo w/ EGA. Very high power for the consumer in the
>mid-late 80's.
>
>So, if we have gone as far as we can in advancing technologies with
>Pattern Design and Performance. I would agree to change the limit, -but
>not remove it-. I just don't think we are at that point.
>
>Again, Twisted perception from a twisted mind.
>
>Larry
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:tkeithb at attbi.com>Keith Black
>To: <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>discussion at nsrca.org
>Sent: Sunday, November 10, 2002 12:14 AM
>Subject: Re: Weight Limit
>
>Larry,
>
>Honestly I haven't decided which side of this issue I'm on. Could you
>explain why you think increasing the weight limit would negatively effect
>the goal of recruiting new members, growing pattern and advancing designs
>and technology? I don't see the correlation.
>
>Thanks,
>Keith

______________________________________________________
           I make Over $5000 per Week on eBay!
         Make eBay(tm) Your Job and Earn BIG $$$
       ---->http://www.licensed4fun.com/ebay<----
______________________________________________________

=====================================
# 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.
#