Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

Mon Jan 26 08:42:02 AKST 2004

But what are you,(or we), going to do when you run out of people to beat. Not because you (we) got better, but because no one competes any more?

The fact that Masters is usually the fullest class means that below Masters is thin on the ground and above Masters is even thinner. (Ask yourself what was the average FAI field in D1 for FAI in 2003? Was it 2 or a decimal of that) 

The object of this discussion exercise is not to analytically tear up every idea but to recognize the issues and propose solutions. If I can get our collective minds to think about growth we might have a healthy sport to hand over to the next generation?

What should be next? If it's a return to former specification limits then that's an idea to consider?

Regards,

Eric.

P.S. FAI sound limits did not exist in our heyday. IMAC does not use them. Is there a corollary between the difficulty/cost to quieten, and participation???

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of David Lockhart
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:16 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

Some scenarios -
- Pattern is exciting, but it is too expensive;
- Pattern is very exciting, but it is too expensive;
- Pattern is extremely exciting, but it is too expensive;
- Pattern is .............................

Making the event "more exciting" is not the issue in my opinion.  In
relative terms, pattern is not an "exciting" event to very many people - and
I certainly don't fly pattern because it is "exciting".  Cost is more of an
absolute and no matter how "exciting" or appealing the event may be, there
will always be some number of people that don't participate because of cost.
Reducing the cost will allow more (not all) people to participate.

Some number of years ago, when the engine displacement limit was 10cc (for
both 2Cs and 4Cs), a very small minority of competitors very vocally opposed
the increase to 20cc for 4Cs.  And then that same group for the most part
opposed the increase to unlimited engine displacement.  And that same group
will/does oppose increases in 2M dimensions or the 5kg weight limit.  I was,
and am, part of that group.

Why?  Simple answer.  $$$$.  Increasing the size of the engines, the size of
the planes, or the weight of the planes will result in more $$$$ needed to
be competitive.  Increasing the $$$$ needed to compete in the event will
push some people out of the event (who are already at a financial limit) and
it limits the pool from which new competitors are drawn from.  History shows
us very clearly, without exception, that every time the rules changed to
allow larger, heavier, higher displacement models, the cost has increased -
that is absolute fact (use of ST2300s being a notable exception, and of very
mixed results).  Another fact is that the perception is very strong that the
more expensive model is superior (and it often is).  In practice, a cheaper
setup with a superior pilot (more practice, more reliable equipment, better
coached, better trimmed/setup plane, etc) can win against a more expensive
setup - but the bigger (more $$$$) plane flies better and is an advantage.
Add up the costs of your favorite 60/90 sized kit/ARF, engine, servos,
support equipment, and vehicle (sedan or hatchback w/ fold-down seats vs
min-van or full-sized van) and see for yourself if the financial obstacle is
significant.

By definition, it is only a small group of competitors within a discipline
that can be "the best" - there are more losers than winners (sorry, I don't
embrace the no grade, no score, no place, no losers, everyone is a winner
philosophy).  Even so, virtually all the competitors want and usually have
"the best" equipment - even when the added expense/complexity does little to
improve their chances of winning at a contest.  No wonder we have a hard
time convincing potential pattern flyers to try the event with sport planes.

I know there is a group out there that will only fly pattern if they can be
competitive - and they are smart enough to know that their budget will not
accommodate a competitive plane - reduce the budget needed, and some of the
competitors from the past will return - and the pool of new competitors to
draw from will increase.

Regards,

Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net

----- Original Message -----
From: "Henderson,Eric" <Eric.Henderson at gartner.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:24 AM
Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

Spectators may or may not give us more contestants. A more serious issue is
how many of us do this. Although we often fall back on how many members we
have as a barometric measure of how healthy we are, it is not the true
indicator.

We probably only have about 300 members who actually compete. (Just read the
K-factors and count the different names). Of that 300, very few are young.
If you take a look at the birthdates you see a large slew towards my age.
The 10-30 year old group has slim pickin's.

You don't have to be a worldwide statistical analyst, to visualize the
future.

It's not the cost of our equipment, but the cost of all of the back-up
stuff. Just check out the vehicles in the parking lot at a contest. How many
young folks have that kind of money. They have kids, new homes and tons of
financial obligations.

How do we make it so exciting that their priorities shift?

E.

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
[mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of seefo at san.rr.com
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 9:07 AM
To: 'discussion at nsrca.org'
Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

Sometimes.. competition is just for the competitors and not for the
viewing public. I think trying to make aerobatics into a spectator sport
takes away from the competitors.

-Doug

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004, Dave Dolzine wrote:

> I could see it now....
>
> "Van Nostrand, a Cinderella story out of Dallas Texas, only needs one more
> 4-point to secure his victory.... OHHH NO, an over rotation. He not going
to
> be happy with that one."
>
> -DD
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org
> [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Lance Van Nostrand
> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 10:52 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions
>
>
> If it wasn't for the announcers building up each golf shot and describing
> what's at stake and recognizing beauty or exaggerating the problems of
> hitting a ball inthe rough, watching golf would be far more boring.
>    When you are at a golf event as spectator, you can stand in one place
and
> watch each player approach you and you can observe their travails.
>    I think we need in pattern to connect to spectators more.  Not to
ignore
> their presence.  We could also use some commentary on what is happening so
> the observer can develop "favorites" and root for something.
>    In scale and large jet events, there is a line up of planes and pilots
> and the public can examine them and talk to the pilots.  We could have a
> corner where we place an announcer and some observation seats where one of
> us describes what is going on, what place the current flier is in, what
> mistakes are seen, etc.  Just like golf - to make it interesting to watch.
>
> Thoughts?
> --Lance
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Pennisi" <pentagon.systems at bigpond.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 23, 2004 6:27 PM
> Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics
>
>
>
> Look at the following Golf has. I enjoy my game of golf occasionally but I
> can't think of anything more boring to watch unless I am playing. Pattern
is
> the same, unless you're involved in some capacity it is boring to watch.
Why
> is golf so popular? - not sure, maybe because it is easy to understand and
> the top players in the world have become household names, draws a lot of
> corporate interest etc.
>
> Pattern will never reach those heights. As long as you enjoy the hobby for
> yourself that is the main thing. If only we could draw an international
> celebrity into flying pattern the public may start to take a little
> interest.
>
> Pattern to the uninitiated is far too complex to understand. It is too
> precise and specialised to become a public domain interest. How will a
> spectator ever understand why Joe Bloggs only received a 4 instead of a 6
> for a 4 point roll?
>
> AAA at a pattern comp would be fun. The only reason why I would do it is
for
> me. If the general public find it interesting to watch - that would be an
> added bonus.
>
> PP
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]
On
> Behalf Of Rcmaster199 at aol.com
> Sent: Saturday, 24 January 2004 9:07 AM
> To: discussion at nsrca.org
> Subject: Re: Artistic Aerobatics
>
> Eric,
> Unless we are judging and have to watch the flights (or at least should
> watch the flights), we often don't look at the other pattern flying much.
At
> least that's been my experience in nearly twenty five years of competitive
> pattern flying.
>
> It seems about the only time we carefully observe or even scrutinize a
> flight when we are NOT sitting in the JC, is when the fellow just above us
> in the standings is flying or when a name flier is flying. But even then,
we
> seldom actually observe a complete flight
>
> Is Pattern boring to watch ? Yeah, probably, to the uninitiated observer
it
> probably is. If anyone of the Pattern people performed a perfect Cuban
say,
> the observer could just as soon yawn. I doubt the observer would fall
asleep
> if a plane was coming down to touch the rudder under full control, making
> all that racket, at the far edge of the runway. Lets be brutally blunt
about
> danger appealing to many.
>
> Are "they" having more fun? Sometimes I think they do, especially when we
> are having a problem with that alky burning, glow plug blowing, bearing
> chewing cantakerous bunch of metal parts. We get upset when our trim
doesn't
> hold. They just fly or hover or whatever. We get right down anal about
noise
> reduction and distance out and weight and 2x2 meters and "they" don't!!!
>
> I did the IMAC thing for a short while but came back. The plane flew well
> enough even though it was a 10 lb overweight ARF(kinda reminded me of me
> actually). It was just too damned big and heavy and a real pain to haul
> around. Not my idea of "FUN"
>
> BUT, I still love Pattern and all its self induced variables. That's my
> bottom line. It's irrational to feel this way but I just do. I guess it
> appeals to my desire for geometric precision and to the discipline it
takes
> to strive for perfection.
>
> IMHO
>
> regards
>
> Matt K
>
>
> Subj:Artistic Aerobatics
> Date:1/23/2004 10:07:44 AM Eastern Standard Time
> From:Eric.Henderson at gartner.com
> Reply-to:discussion at nsrca.org
> To:discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent from the Internet
>
>
>
> As some of you may know I ran an FAI-FG1 event a couple of years ago at
the
> Nat's after the finals. Quique, Troy and Chad Northeast put on a really
> great show for us while we waited for the Masters and FAI results.
>
> I have not heard much about this event type since then. I was wondering if
> the FAI adopted it or not.
>
> Flying a pattern type plane to music is very attractive. It is one of the
> few times where the plane does not drown-out the music! More correctly
said,
> the planes have to comply with size weight and sound FAI regulations. They
> do not actually have to be what we fly in a pattern contest. Some guys use
> the same planes and swap-in 3-D wings and stabs. They often change their
> props.
>
> It is, of course, the rest-of-the-world's version of IMAC freestyle.
>
> I have written, not without a shot or two across my bows, that the
> delineator between precision aerobatics and scale aerobatics is that
pattern
> is based on practicing the routine, a lot!
> I see IMAC pilots practicing tailslides and Harriers and torque rolls, but
> rarely the routines they fly. In particular, wannabe IMAC pilots fly the
> hover stuff for most of their flights. Once in a while I "push my luck"
and
> I ask them why they practice most, the thing that they will do least, in a
> contest. (Maybe once in a freestyle routine at the end of an event).
>
> The answer always is, "Because I want to get better at it and it is fun".
> Are they having more fun than us? I know that watching a loud plane hover
> over the runway is fun for a while but it gets old pretty quick and even
> becomes annoying. A bit like when we played our 45's on repeat. We coul
> listen to the same song, that we had just purchased, but our allegedly
> tone-deaf fathers were soon motivated to become "discus" throwers!!!!
>
> The question is still out there however, "Are we boring?" and "Do we,
> (pattern pilots), need be more watchable"???
>
> Regards, it is still winter - Eric.
>
>
> ============# 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.
> #
>

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

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