[NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost andpartiicpation --

[Dean Pappas]

Let me try to offer another perspective on the situation. Everyone is making good points, even where they don't necessarily agree.
 
Back when ... In R/C you either flew Sport, or Pattern, or Pylon, or Scale. That was it!
Oh, the discussions in print when Stand-Off Scale was proposed. It was the end of the culture of building excellence! NOT!
It was also heralded as the greatest thing to happen to Scale modelling.
Back then, a lot of guys flew more than one event: the early years of "Goodyear" racing read like the Pattern NATs results.
Heck, Larry Leonard won both the same year in '69! After all, the RC World was a smaller universe ...
Of course, back in DaVinci's day, it was possible for one man to know almost everything known to man!
 
As Bob describes, there is a huge fractionalization in just the competition-friendly segment of the RC community.
Look at how many competitive, or special-appeal, events there are just in Scale!
The R/C Aerobatics world is split almost neatly in two, complete ( at times) with ersatz holy war between the factions. 
 
We are a smaller chunk of a hopefully larger pie, and as a result, we are less like the "demographic center" of Aeromodelling.
Complaining about it is at least cathartic, if not fun.
Our mission is to find the corruptible ones: the guy who enjoys both the cameraderie and competition. Then we show them the joy of Pattern.
No, we may never have the WOW factor of other segments of the hobby, and if we changed to make it so, we would lose our way.
 
The Control-Line Stunt guys have seen this cycle come to maturity: there is a small, but stable, community there.
Do some of them long for the days when Stunt had hundreds of NATs entrants? Yes, but they also know that the art is in no danger of extinction.
 
let me shift gears:
 
Imagine if just one major direction change, in the event, had gone differently ...
Back in the early '80s, there was actually some serious discussion in the FAI Technical Subcommittee to limit the functionality of radios to 5 or 6 channels, dual rates, and no couplings.
It was supposed to be a cost-limiting rule, and it would have rewarded those who designed better airplanes.
Needless to say, the idea went down in spectacular flames, but there actually was a discussion!
If it had gone through, the Pattern people would now be like Amish among the modern world. Boy, would we look silly!
 
feels good to get that out ...
    Dean

Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Bob Richards
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2006 12:03 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Equipment cost andpartiicpation --


I really don't think that turnaround caused the drop in numbers that a lot of people seem to attribute. Sure, some of the long-time pattern veterans did not like it, and dropped out, but the biggest contests that I can remember in this area were a couple of years after turnaround started. (All classes).
 
Like others have mentioned, the expense of competition has gone up. Not only from the required equipment, but also from the travel expense (gas prices, hotels, etc). And, there are many other things competing for our time, both in and out of the hobby. I believe that is why there are so many ARFs on the market, that is the only way a lot of us can have the time to put into this hobby.
 
My son just got interested in flying RC last year. He soloed in quick order, and he wants EVERYTHING. He wants to fly helipcopters. He wants to try IMAC. He wants to try pattern, and he wants to go to giant-scale meets. Patt! ern seems to be on the low end of his scale, however, possibly due to the "wow factor" of the other events.  Guess what, daddy can't afford everything!!!
 
Bob R.
 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060228/b24fd831/attachment.html