Does Pattern competition cost too much?

[Bill Glaze]

Dave:
Not that it means a lot to anybody, but I dropped out of IMAC when the 
airplanes went on steroids.  A 35% airplane is now a less-than-standard 
size plane, (40% seems to be the norm) and requires much more support 
equipment and a change of lifestyle, (ground transportation, etc.) I 
find that I'm not interested enough to make the required changes.  And, 
as a top competitor said a while back:  "you know, I don't recall having 
back problems until I started flying Giant Scale......"
A 2 meter, plug-in wing airplane (maximum; I could get by cheerfully 
with smaller) exactly suits my life style. 
Speaking for me, only, if pattern required a large size airplane, I 
would probably go back to IMAC (or drop out entirely) because I like 
many of the IMAC rules, and definitely prefer the annual sequence 
changes, expressing sequences in Aresti, etc.  As I say, just my 
opinion, but you and I have discussed some of these things before.

Bill Glaze

David Lockhart wrote:

> I can picture the optimized 3m plane - it would be a wonderful flying 
> machine.
>  
> I'm having a harder time picturing the RV or truck/trailer, and 
> workshop/garage/house that would allow me to have such a plane.  Maybe 
> I am the only one who would drop out of pattern if the planes were 3 
> meters - but I think not - as I know plenty that dropped out of 
> pattern with each iterative escalation of the rules for pattern since 
> the late '80s.
>
> Dave
>
>     ----- Original Message -----
>     From: J.Oddino <mailto:joddino at socal.rr.com>
>     To: discussion at nsrca.org <mailto:discussion at nsrca.org>
>     Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 5:34 PM
>     Subject: Does Pattern competition cost too much?
>
>     Thanks to all who responded.  There were many good thoughts on why
>     IMAC seems to be more attractive than pattern these days.  I don't
>     think either group has a lock on being nicer guys and putting on a
>     better contest, it has to be something in the formula.  I like
>     IMAC from the standpoint there is no weight limit resulting in
>     more rugged airplanes that require less maintenance.  The gas
>     engines are more user friendly and provide excessive power without
>     a lot of engineering and expensive fuel.  No one wins because they
>     have a better engine.  Less emphasis on the box relaxes the
>     pilots.  But probably the biggest thing they have going for them
>     is the fact that the larger airplanes are better at doing what we
>     want to do.  The 40%ers fly huge maneuvers at what seems a low
>     constant speed with constant radii on top and bottom of very
>     straight vertical lines.  They are much less susceptible to wind.
>      
>     Having said all this I plan to get back into pattern and the
>     reason is I believe the electric power system will overcome many
>     of my current complaints about pattern.  I also agree that the
>     arrival of many ARFs will be good for pattern.  It will be
>     interesting to watch but I think pattern will be making a comeback
>     without any major changes in the rules and specs for the
>     airplanes.  I'd still like to see an unlimited aerobatic model
>     airplane.  Picture an optimized 3 meter pattern plane with a DA 150. 
>      
>     Regards, Jim O
>      
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050728/b6a0a6da/attachment.html