[SPAM] Growing Pattern

[Joe Lachowski]

Maybe we should change the NSRCA name to something more recognizable. How 
about PAC for Precision Aerobatics Club for example?


>From: "Ed  Alt" <ed_alt at hotmail.com>
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [SPAM] Growing Pattern
>Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:31:57 -0500
>
>FYI, Dave Michael and I are good friends stemming from my IMAC days.  I 
>would like to add my perspective as IMAC to Pattern convert.  I talk to 
>many from the IMAC ranks about starting in Pattern and I think Dave makes 
>many good points about their perspective on things. The perception of 
>Pattern requiring expensive designs is fairly prevalent in my experience.  
>Alot of it is based in reality, i.e., you definitely do see some expensive 
>hardware in use, especially at the Nats level.  It's less prevalent 
>locally, but the reputation is probably still somewhat deserved.  It is a 
>fairly recent development that some solid, competitive designs are 
>available as ARCS / ARFs or relatively low cost composites.  There are the 
>strong proponents of one engine design/brand or another.  I have found that 
>very inexpensive alternatives to high end 4 strokes exist and they are 
>extremely competitive and well behaved.  Also much cheaper to run.  But 
>this type of information does not seem to be widespread.
>
>To frame this for the List, Dave is a very good pilot and builder and very 
>resourceful. Yet, about the time right after his first Pattern contest 
>experience, he had a zillion questions for me, the 2 year Pattern veteran 
>(ha!).  Questions about airframes, engines, exhaust etc.  Why?  Not because 
>it's too hard for a guy like Dave to figure it out, but because these are 
>well kept secrets!  What is a much less experienced guy going to do?  
>Generally, they go where the perceived action is, where almost everyone 
>seems to know something about the hot setup, the best buy in an engine etc. 
>They flock to "big gas" and then some of them actually end up flying IMAC 
>competition.  A smaller percentage stick with it.  An even smaller 
>percentage get real serious about precision flying.  Whoever they are, they 
>often spend 3X or more of what it would take to enter Pattern successfully, 
>so it's not money holding many guys back from trying Pattern.  I think it 
>has to do with the perceived value of whatever they spend $$$ on, the WOW 
>factor, the fact that the lingering image of Pattern to the masses is still 
>pinned to a 130 mph lawn dart with retracts zipping from horizon to 
>horizon.
>
>I was fortunate when I got started in Pattern, because I had a boatload of 
>local, very experienced Pattern competitors right nearby who I already knew 
>well.   So I got great start-up advice, instantaneous feedback at the field 
>etc.  A show of hands please:  Who else had this experience to start with?  
>Some, but not most I bet.  Where can you find even 1/10th the information 
>about our current equipment as you can for the IMAC stuff?  Magazines?  
>We're fortunate to have Eric and Dean's columns, but it's a dedicated 
>following that hunts for this type of information.  I think that there is 
>just a different mindset in the majority of IMAC flyers vs. those dedicated 
>to Pattern.  I see it in the aircraft designs, in the rules, in the 
>sequence designs and in the demeanor of the people involved.  I think 
>Pattern appeals to more of the purist type, yet we are every bit as fun 
>loving as IMAC types.  That's me for example.  I went absolutely bonkers 
>over what I thought were idiotic rules changes in IMAC about 3 years ago. 
>It took me a while to just figure out that I was just in the wrong event 
>after 7 years.
>
>Do we need unknowns to make Pattern more popular?  By itself, I don't think 
>it would do much to help.  IMAC is off doing their level best to copy IAC, 
>which includes interesting stuff like unknowns, but the rules and sequences 
>they fly also take alot of precision and objectivity out of the flying and 
>judging. Adding unknowns creates more dependence on luck.  Judges don't 
>know what they are looking at until they've seen it flown a few times.  
>It's interesting to fly something new, but does it make sense to heavily 
>influence the outcome this way?  Freestyle is something that on average, 
>less than 20% of contestants will attempt, so that's not the big draw as 
>far as I can tell.  I've seen Freestyle materially interfere with the 
>conduct of the "pattern" portion of the contest (the real contest IMO) due 
>to the undue emphasis on it.
>
>I guess what I'm saying is, it's Pattern. It's about precision.  That's the 
>thing that I 'get' from it anyway. It has similarities to IMAC, yet differs 
>from IMAC in significant ways. I think those differences form the basis of 
>the key strengths of Pattern, even if enough newbies aren't able to 
>recognize it in recent history.  Each event will draw it's own type of 
>follower. I think that NSRCA has to learn one key thing from IMAC.  That 
>would be how to market themselves (us).  Ever wonder why everyone calls 
>"it" IMAC?  "It" is really the Scale Aerobatics event.  "It" isn't IMAC, 
>IMAC is just the SIG, but everyone thinks IMAC is what they are flying.  
>Who goes around saying "Hey Bubba, going to the Propbuster NSRCA contest 
>next weekend?" No one does. Not that calling it an NSRCA contest is the 
>goal, but the thing is, hardly anyone even knows this SIG exists unless 
>they are already flying Pattern.  Since the NSRCA SIG and it's members are 
>the probably the main source of information to entice/educate newcomers, I 
>reckon that's a key problem to be solved.
>
>I think that the key to growing Pattern has little to do with emulating 
>events from IMAC.  It has mostly to do with educating people, getting the 
>'product' out there, making sure people know what it's about and how to get 
>into it successfully.  IMAC is a product that is marketed successfully, 
>even with the low recurrence of new flyers returning to compete.  They pull 
>newcomers in by the droves though.  From what I can tell, Pattern keeps 'em 
>better though.  Why?  It's a more mature event, many of the hardest lessons 
>have been learned already it and it "makes sense" once you are in it.  Most 
>of the rules in Precision Aerobatics don't make me want to bang my head 
>against the wall (except that spin definition).  You guys have it mostly 
>figured out already, which makes a purist want to stick with it, but you 
>have NOT figured out how to get them in the tent in big numbers so that you 
>can find new purists.
>
>So please don't re-engineer the event to try to draw new blood.  Instead, 
>focus on dispelling the myths about what is flown, what the models are 
>like, let it be known that a $700 4C burning $25 worth of fuel in a day 
>isn't required etc.  I've got several guys from IMAC interested in Pattern, 
>because I explain stuff to them, I let them fly my airplane etc.  Between 
>Frank Granelli and I, we've got 2 or 3 newbies in our own club starting up 
>with a Focus II this coming season.  We're going to teach them about 
>straight lines, what plug to pick etc and hopefully they will feel good 
>about whatever progress they make.  Work with the guys that don't know what 
>we know and have some enthusiasm about it. Hold Pattern Primers.  Show up 
>and help demonstrate and explain at these Primers.  Pattern in D1 is not 
>dying, it is GROWING. Our district leadership works with interested clubs 
>and individuals to help to make this happen.  Contests with 2 dozen to over 
>30 contestants do happen in this district and they are not anomalies.
>
>Ed


=================================================
If you want your reply email to go to the list, you must Cc: the list!

To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.