FW: [SPAM] Growing Pattern

[Stuart Chale]

I will throw an additional 1½ cents in with some ramblings.

 

Ed and Dave make some interesting points and comparisons between IMAC (I
means scale aerobatics) and pattern.  As some of you who know me, I have
been away from pattern for a while. (kids and other hobbies).  I started
flying in the early 80’s.  Most contests were 1 day and less than 30
entrants would be unusual.  IMAC may have been in existence, I really do not
know but it surely wasn’t as widely known as it is today.

 

I just did a google search on IMAC history and found this article.
http://www.iac.org/featured/Featured%20Article%20-%20Vol.30,%20No.07%20July%
202001.html

 

An excerpt reads as follows:

In 1976 the National Sport Biplane Association became affiliated with the
IAC and became IMAC.

In the next few years, membership in IMAC grew, and more model aircraft
manufacturers began producing scale acrobatic aircraft. The Pitts still was
popular, but monoplanes like Leo’s Laser and CAP 21s were also being built.
At this time (early to mid-80s), most of the scale aerobatic models used in
competition were 1/4 scale or less, meaning they had wingspans between 60
and 80 inches and engines ranging from 0.60 to 2.0 cubic inches running on
model airplane fuel (glow fuel).

In the late 80s and early 90s, new high-performance mono-planes began to
appear on the IAC flight line and also at IMAC contests. Extras, Sukhois,
and CAPs became the hot ride of choice. Here is one major advantage of
flying models over their full-scale counterparts—the price difference
between a clipped-wing Cub and an Extra is a nonissue!

During the 90s every kit manufacturer was producing these hot rods in sizes
from 1/6 scale to 35 percent scale (54- to 105-inch wingspans), with the
larger aircraft powered by gas engines in the 2.4-to 6.0-cubic-inch range.
These scale acrobatic aircraft were very popular with all modelers. This
trend was helpful to IMAC. Formerly, the soley recognized form of model
aerobatic competition involved  "pattern" aircraft that appeared dissimilar
to their full-size cousins- narrow, ultra streamlined, and unnaturally long
moments.

One of the key points is the last paragraph.  As Ed and Dave mentioned these
planes were readily available.  Clearly more people, newbies into
aerobatics, and not necessarily looking to fly contests, are going to buy a
scale looking plane to fly aerobatics then a non-scale, although often
considered “sexy” pattern plane to try out aerobatics.  Then there was the
issue of tuned pipes, retracts, etc.   

 

Back in the 80’s I do not know anyone from my area (Long Island, NY) that
was flying in IMAC contests.  There was a bunch of pattern flyers though.
You would probably find anywhere between 4 an 8 of us from this area at any
local contest for a while.  Now I am told that no one flys pattern anymore
around here.  There is a group of IMAC pilots.  I am told about 15 or so
from Long Island formed a group or club.  I did watch a couple of them
practicing one weekend, and you know, it looks a lot like pattern, just with
bigger, maybe better presenting, planes.

 

I do not know what the local IMAC contest scene is like but I do know that
pattern contests have dwindled in number in this area.  Seems like you have
to go farther and farther to find one.  Truthfully (IMO) the 2 day contest
has a lot to do with this.  It is much harder for a club to run a 2 day
contest and for some people, harder to attend.  I used to always prefer the
one day setups when I was flying competitively.  I also didn’t have a lot of
money at the time, being a student, to spend on lodging.  Since you are
asking club members who are not pattern or IMAC flyers to put on a contest,
which do you think they would rather watch while running the contest.  I
suspect more will say 33 to 40% scale planes then 2M pattern planes.  I do
not know what the local IMAC contest scene is like but I know what I would
expect to hear from club members being asked to run one or the other.


So IMAC is now much better advertised and better know to the masses then it
was in the 80’s.  Pattern is certainly still known to exist.  The problem is
that there are a limited number of people who want to fly in competitions.
Aerobatic or otherwise.  Take the aerobatic competitors and now you have two
similar although different venues for them to try their skills in.  I feel
we are still drawing from about the same pool of flyers just dividing them
up between two organizations.  We have already ascertained that it is
probably easier to first try an IMAC contest then it is to try a pattern
contest.  So more people are trying IMAC instead of pattern for the first
time and their numbers are growing.

 

Just some scatterd thoughts,

Stuart Chale

 

Any pattern flyers on Long Island on this list :-)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20051112/ed560589/attachment-0001.html