Does Pattern competition cost too much?

[Grow Pattern]

My standard is that If I can't pick up the fuselage, unaided, and get it out of the house, IT'S TOOO BIG! 

I have a really good Hanger-9 using a ZDZ80 twin with four flights on it, that lives in the garage because of its size (Needs a new home BTW)

The 2-M or 78-5/8" planes can be held vertical and maneuvered through a doorway. Several doorways , in my case, to get them out of the house.

Then if my lovely assistant, Michelle, can't carry it out to the runway, its a no-go as well.

We have a great class with the current AMA specs. Long live irredentism!

Eric.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Glaze 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2005 9:58 AM
  Subject: Re: Does Pattern competition cost too much?


  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 
      To: 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/b4f2ad2c/attachment.html