Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

Mon Jan 26 10:48:57 AKST 2004

E,

I think one of the points of your prior email was that the expense of
competing in pattern is high......and that if pattern were more exciting, it
would be more incentive for people to participate.

I agree with much of your post(s) - where I believe you saw disagreement
with my post was regarding the exciting aspect.  I find many forms of
motorsports racing very exciting (many others find it boring) and would love
to participate - but the cost is prohibitive - and it always will be (for
me) no matter how exciting the event is.  So with respect to pattern -
- If the event is viewed as exciting and within budget, we have a new (or
returning) pattern pilot;
- If the event is not viewed as exciting - the budget doesn't matter and
changing the event to be exciting will make it a different event;
- If the event is viewed as exciting and exceeds the available budget, we
lose a new (or returning) pattern pilot because of cost and the excitement
level is moot.

My point(s) - I agree entirely that pattern is expensive, and more expensive
than it has been in the past.  I don't think the excitement level of pattern
is the big issue (if the event is made to be "exciting", it won't be pattern
anymore).  I think money is a big issue.  And I also think time is a big
issue (60 sized ships were quicker to build, and far less time to maintain).
As much as I love how well the 2M pattern models fly, I think the cost and
time needed for the 2M models has reduced the number of potential (and
former) pattern pilots.  I've never seen competition well served by reducing
the number of competitors - and that is exactly what the escalation of
engine size has done over the past couple rules cycles - and exactly what
will continue to happen if larger airframes (>2M) and heavier airframes
(>5kg) are allowed in the future.  Following this trend to an extreme
example would lead us to pattern planes the size of 40% IMAC models - any
hardcore IMAC guys care to comment on the cost/time/complexity of a 40% IMAC
model compared to a 2M pattern model?

Sound - there is absolutely a corollary between sound, displacement, and
cost.  Big engines are louder.  Big engines are harder to quiet.  Big
engines are more costly to quiet.  Big props for big models make more noise.
The expense and complexity of pattern power systems (engines, exhaust
components, props, softmounts, etc) increased substantially with the
introduction of noise limits.  And no matter how many people may have left
the event because of noise limits, we still have the noise limits to thank
for the event being viable in many parts of the country.  Without a quiet
pattern plane, I would not be able to fly my pattern plane at 90% of the
fields I currently use.  After several years of pretty  nasting fighting
within the group (not unlike pattern in the late 80's), the IMAC contingent
is now also moving towards quieter planes (as did pattern in the early
90's).

In my mind, one of the biggest areas upon which to get new pattern fliers is
from modelers new to the RC hobby.  Many of these new modelers do not
subscribe to magazines, are not members of AMA, don't belong to local clubs,
and have never run or thought of using a glow or gas powered engine.  These
new modelers are the electric park flyers - some of whom do appreciate
regimented flying and competition - trick is/will be exposing them to
pattern.  Electrics in pattern is a whole new topic that is rapidly
changing - for the purposes of this email thread, suffice to say similar
comparisons to 2M sized electrics vs 1.5M electrics can be made in an
analogous manner as 2M glow vs 60 sized glow.  Bigger is more expensive,
more time consuming, and louder.  I'm not yet familiar enough with electrics
to be savvy about how to keep electric costs down - but, it a displacement
rule were to return to pattern, I think limiting the watts of an electric
would be analogous.

Just my experiences.

Regards,
Dave Lockkhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henderson,Eric" <Eric.Henderson at gartner.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 12:42 PM
Subject: RE: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

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.

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