[NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the DogHunt on points made?

Thu Mar 2 09:30:54 AKST 2006

Reading the comments here brings the following to my attention.

Loud "ballistic missile" pattern = Huge popularity.
Quite graceful pattern flying 150 m away = Boring.
Huge Loud IMAC planes flying 3D = Huge popularity.

I bet if we add an "Extreme Pattern" class where we do high slow rolls and snaps ten feed off the deck right over the runway we'd become much more popular again.  ;-)

Keith Black

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 8:55 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the DogHunt on points made?

  Larry,

  Good points.

  A little history, as best as I can remember it. 

  At one time, Pattern was the top of the heap. I remember the first RC Modeler magazine I bought (circa 1972) had coverage of the Masters competition. RC Modeler carried coverage of the large pattern contests back then. At some point (I don't remember when, exactly) RCM (aka Don Dewey) became ticked off at the AMA because AMA chose to publish their own magazine. This happened when American Aircraft Modeler magazine went out of business, they had been publishing the AMA News in the back of their magazine. It seemed to me that RCM no longer covered pattern events after that. There was a big push by RCM to promote the "Sport Flyers Association", anything AMA sanctioned was left out. (This was my observation).

  Along came the TOC, which actually started out with pattern models. Again, t! here was coverage. But, then the TOC went the scale aerobatics route (and extra points for biplanes, and extra points for mammoth planes -- the rest is history).

  Pattern is no longer the premiere event that it used to be. I think it all goes back to the WOW factor. There also seemed to be a period where pattern flyers were looked down upon, usually labeled "snobs". Thank goodnes that does not seem to be the case anymore.

  I think the change from loud, ballistic missle type flying to the turnaround style now has changed the general modeling perception, although it took several years for the general modeling public to recognize the change. 

  However, the turnaround format seems to have had both a positive and negative effect. The general modeling public respects pattern more as a result, but it also SEEMS to be a barrier for new participants. Again, this is just my opinion.

  Bob R.

  Lisa & Larry <lld613 at psci.net> wrote:
    Eric Henderson wrote**** If we knew why we could probably fix it. ****

    From my viewpoint trying to get into pattern around 1999 was a major challenge.

    I was first introduced to Pattern in Southern California in 1985 when I went to watch a contest. It took another 15 years to have the time and money to do it. For me lack of time was because of my service in the US Navy. Difficult to fly when your out at sea and they don't fit too well in a locker on the ship.vbg

    ! It took me from 1999 to 2002 to find somebody that new what pattern was. Everyone new IMAC and could point me to a pilot that competed, but not Pattern.

    What does this mean? Either I'm not a very smart cookie or Pattern is a very well kept secret (not much has changed since 1999). So how is it that a person that new pattern existed took the better part of 4 years to finally talk to someone that could help get started?

    Over the last seven years we watched IMAC ARF's take off and sell like hot cakes, only in the last couple years have we seen Pattern ARF's on the market.

    I went to an RC Airshow north of Bloomington, IN around the spring of 2002. I watched a pilot fly an Extra for an IMAC Sportsman Class Demo. I approached him and asked him about Pattern and how to get started. His response was clear, "Why would you want to fly a toy model plane when you can fly a model of a real plane and do the same thing!" Aside from an instant turn off from IMAC, it ! set the tone of perception between IMAC and Pattern. I will most likely start competing in IMAC this year as well as pattern. Mostly because there are more IMAC contests in a 5 hour drive than there are pattern from where I'm located.

    If you compare IMAC and Pattern I don't think the dog hunts in most of the arguments I've seen posted in the last few years as they reappear from time to time. 

    1)       IMAC and Pattern planes compare in cost. (That dog won't hunt on this point)
    2)       IMAC and Pattern take the same ! amount of practice time to be competitive in a given class. (That dog won't hunt on this point)
    3)       IMAC and Pattern meets are relatively the same driving distance for most. (That dog won't hunt on this point)
    4)       I can find more IMAC contests than Pattern contests (Dog might be tracking something on this one)
    5)       Sport pilots know more about IMAC than they do pattern, this is speculative but I believe it's the case. (Dog might be tracking something on this one)

    We need to do a better job marketing Pattern. I think that IMAC has done great in this area. The TOC helped IMAC grow and get the word out through coverage of a big event. I think we can see a decline in IMAC since the last TOC. I have not seen or heard of a big contest that gets the publicity that the TOC received. Even the FAI World Pattern contest is not covered as well as the TOC was.

    How do you guys view these points?

    Larry Diamond
    NSRCA 3083

    PS.What Eric does for Pattern in his reporting to magazines is probably one of the key factors that he! lps pattern stay afloat. Thanks Eric..

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  NSRCA-discussion mailing list
  NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
  http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20060302/47584512/attachment-0001.html 