Artistic Aerobatics suggestions

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

Good stuff Dave. My feelings and experiences are similar

MattK


> Subj:Re: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions 
> Date:1/26/2004 2:49:08 PM Eastern Standard Time
> From:DaveL322 at comcast.net
> Reply-to:discussion at nsrca.org
> To:discussion at nsrca.org
> Sent from the Internet 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20040126/bb2a53df/attachment.html