Growing Pattern klipped to repost

Sat Nov 12 11:15:11 AKST 2005

Way back when, there were at least 8 to 10 1 day contests a season all
within 2 to 2.5 hours driving.  I even went to a couple of two day contests
that were close enough to drive to each day.  If I had to drive 4+ hours to
get to a contest, I would prefer a 2 day event as well.  Everyone has their
preferences and reasons behind them.  I would suggest that if you were one
who only would fly at a one day contest, you may no longer be competing or
part of this discussion.  Most people who stayed with it either preferred 2
day contests or accepted them as the norm. (Maybe there are still areas that
feature one day events, I do not know).  
Is the reason for lower attendance at contests due to loss of people that
didn't want to invest the time in 2 day contests, or because some of the new
blood found IMAC instead?  Nobody really knows.  Maybe it is a little of
both, maybe there is a totally different reason for it.

Stuart Chale

-----Original Message-----
From: discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Del K. Rykert
Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 1:06 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Fw: Growing Pattern ** klipped to repost **

Had a comment on the 1 day contests Stuart made.  The main reason I don't 
attend some contests is they are only one day and for me don't justify the 5

or 7 hour drive to possibly get rained out or blown out at one day events. 
If they were local would be different story but For years I have not 
attended 1 day contests because they were only 1 day and long drive.
    So there is, as always, two sides to every equation. CD's make their 
choices and we live with the consequences. I no longer go to contests that 
camping isn't allowed at flying field either...  My attendance has declined 
for this very reason to some regional contests. We all have different issues

that we personally need to address to justify making the choice to fly 
pattern and which contests we can or will attend.

                     Del
               nsrca - 473
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Stuart Chale
  To: discussion at nsrca.org
  Sent: Saturday, November 12, 2005 9:49 AM
  Subject: FW: [SPAM] Growing Pattern

  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.

=================================================
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.

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.