[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different AerobaticModel Types
Joe Lachowski
jlachow at hotmail.com
Fri Mar 3 03:58:50 AKST 2006
I must say, with its ever increasing population density, New Jersey and
Gassers just don't mix.<g>
>From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different
>AerobaticModel Types
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 07:31:11 -0500
>
>Of course the local clubs are partly to blame in that they don't establish
>and ENFORCE noise rules.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Dean Pappas [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
>Behalf Of Dean Pappas
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:39 PM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different Aerobatic
>Model Types
>
>Hi Dave,
>What I hope we are saying here, is that being smart and making our
>aerobatic
>planes quiet is good for the continued survival of both events. Of course,
>if flyers with large, loud, and far-away 40% planes lose all our practice
>fields and practice sites ...
>
>This is just how the West Windsor contest in Jersey became a "first annual
>and only ever" event.
>Sadly, I have to say that two or three IMACers joined the club, and within
>a
>few months, we had no Pattern Contest, a 6:00 P.M. weekday curfew on wet
>power, and neighbors who are now very aware of our existence. Being noticed
>ain't always a good thing! Smart noise abatement programs are aimed at
>preventing that first complaint. Once it happens, it's almost too late.
>
>To this end, I dearly would like to see the FAI consider a schedule
>change(s) on an emergency basis, to change the existing rolling circles
>into
>rolling-looping figures of some sort. Rolling circles are beautiful, but
>potential flying site killers. The meaningful noise rules and Turnaround,
>both dating back to the visionary changes in the early eighties, were
>necessary to save the event from not being viable World-wide. Further
>efforts along this line are necessary to ensure the continued viability of
>the event: in populated areas, at least.
>
>later friends,
>Dean Pappas
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org on behalf of Dave Michael
>Sent: Thu 3/2/2006 9:36 PM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Cc:
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC VsPatternParticipation?Does the
>DogHunt
>on points made?
>OK, so what are we saying here? I think it says that Pattern is
>neighborhood friendly and IMAC is noisy and rude. While I don't think it's
>as bad as my good friend Ed describes, let's say it's just like that for
>sake of discussion.
>
>What does this mean for Pattern?
>
>I don't think this really means much for Pattern at all. I have heard
>this
>message before- pattern is good because it is quiet so, for that reason, it
>is better and people should want to join in on the fun. That's not a
>strong
>Marketing campaign.
>
>Right or wrong, for most potential participants, this is probably not even
>a
>major factor in their decision making process to get involved- you could
>even make the argument that the sound drives some people to and not away
>from IMAC. Now, don't get me wrong- I agree that the big planes should be
>quieter (in fact, they are quieter than a few years ago and we owe that in
>no small part to some of the pattern folks I know and who may be reading
>this message) and that all modelers should work to be good neighbors in
>order to keep flying field and events.
>
>However if we are talking about how to get more participation in pattern, I
>think we need to look at the product. As I outlined in an earlier post
>today, from a Marketing prospective Pattern faces an uphill battle- it's
>not as interesting to the average flyer (prospective customer) and there
>are
>similar disciplines (other products) that are flashier and get more press.
>
>
>I got involved in an almost identical discussion on this list a while back
>and, quite frankly, I came away with the feeling that the "core" pattern
>group likes the event just the way it is now and do not want to change it.
>It is perfectly fine to feel that way but you can't have it that way and
>expect to see changes in participation rates. >From where I sit- the issue
>of "growing pattern" is just like trying to expand one's business. If you
>are determined to keep producing the same product but are continually
>unhappy with your company sales you need a new CEO....
>
>I don't expect that pattern will change much and I'm ok with that. I will
>fly a pattern contest or two now and again because I like the sequence work
>the best, I appreciate the precision and performance and I get a huge
>charge
>out of the demonstrated control over the aircraft required to perform a
>really well flown maneuver.
>
>But- I would probably fly in more contests and think you would see some
>new
>faces if we tried to spruce up the product a bit. Bill Glaze mentioned
>that he was considering doing unknowns. Bill, to answer your question, I
>would say "go for it" and introduce unkowns. They are a lot of fun! I
>believe that you can further demonstrate your flying abilities by
>performing
>well in the unknowns. It is a real challenge and you feel great when you
>do
>them well.
>
>Oh, well, that's enough for now. Gotta go put the cannisters and three
>bladed prop on my 40% Extra..... :)
>
>Dave
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:23 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs PatternParticipation?Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
>
>Jay:
>Very true. Several sites formerly used for SA contests have been lost here
>in the NE due to noise / neighbor complaints during contests. I heard that
>another contest went away due to liability concerns after a severe injury
>involving a contestant and his own airplane, then there's another which
>very
>sadly is going away because of real estate development (PGRC field).
>There's a lot of history at that field. Anyway, the noise footprint
>concern
>is huge. We had a request for our club to host a 2nd SA contest this year
>because of the loss of so many other sites. We turned it down in part
>because of the fact that the noise rules are now ignored, the box
>boundaries
>went away and the sequences are insane, making the noise footprint problem
>worse than it's ever been. Even as wide open as we think our contest field
>is, we've had complaints and we didn't want to increase the exposure and
>risk. They better figure out what is plainly obvious to at least some of
>us, because the current profile of the event is fairly obnoxious to alot of
>people. The hovering next to the pits also has the club member volunteers
>pretty darned annoyed and with them as well as being concerned with
>liability, but the attitude by some is that it's their right - to
>paraphrase
>- "it's IMAC, it's what we do".
>
>Anyway, compare the D1 contest calendar to the NE IMAC contest calendar and
>tell me again that IMAC is gaining while pattern is losing. Not around here
>is isn't.
>
>Ed
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Jay Marshall <mailto:lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:24 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation?Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
>
>The strongest control is the neighbors closing down the site.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:59 PM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
>
>Ed:
>I'll tell you of the latest iteration/interpretation when I get back from
>Florida. I'm sure it will be interesting. It is amazing and a little more
>than baffling to me that, with the loudest airplanes in modeling, there is
>somewhere between little or no effort to control the noise footprint.
>Bill Glaze
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt at hotmail.com>
>To: randy10926 at comtekmail.com ; NSRCA Mailing List
><mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:48 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
>
>For all practical purposes, Scale Aerobatics has no box anymore. It exists
>as an abstract concept on a piece of paper in that it has a defined height,
>width and depth, but since they eliminated the 75 degree markers, there is
>nothing left to measure it against. Additionally, they eliminated the
>concept of zones, so you are free to place things where it seems good to
>place them, i.e., a figure that would appear to be meant for the center of
>the box doesn't have to be flown directly in front of you. Your choice of
>placement has some kind of connection to the so-called Presentation Score
>as
>it was originally 'defined'. There are no deductions for centering
>inaccuracy. Once you enter the box, you still need to get figures in the
>correct order and direction, though cross box figures leave direction (in
>or
>out) to the discretion of the pilot. Currently, there may or may not be
>enforcement of a pure impressionist extra figure known as the Presentation
>Score. It passed as a rule, then everyone was instructed by the IMAC BOD
>not to follow the AMA rule they pushed through. I heard rumblings that
>maybe they are going to allow or encourage CDs to follow that rule again.
>Not sure, I don't really track what they do very closely anymore.
>
>Ed
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Glenn Hatfield <mailto:randy10926 at comtekmail.com>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:21 PM
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
>
>You can fly low slow and close in if you desire. The box that you fly in
>is
>smaller for pattern than IMAC. You get too close in and the box gets
>really
>small. The box is about the right size for a 2 meter at 150 to 170 Meters
>parallel to the flight line. You might be able to fly a 50 sized at 125 to
>150 meters. At least I do.
>Randy
>
>--- "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com> wrote:
>
>From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
>Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:51:24 -0500
>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
>I'm new and saw my first contests last year. My first impression was "Why
>do
>they fly so high?" Then I wondered what would happen if I flew low, slow
>and
>close in with a Oxalys 50? Still wondering.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike mueller
>Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:14 PM
>To: NSRCA Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the
>DogHunt on points made?
> You know what, Keith is right. We have a really good flyer that comes to
>one of our contests about once a year. He flys his whole sequence right off
>the deck like a bat out of hell. He's really good and can pull it off. The
>deal excites everyone. It's a blast to watch.
>
>Keith Black <tkeithb at comcast.net> wrote:
>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 <mailto:bob at toprudder.com>
>To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thursday, Ma! rch 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 Associat!
>ion", 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
>negati!
>ve 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) 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
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _____
>
>Yahoo! Mail
>Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail
><http://pa.yahoo.com/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39174/*http:/photomail.mail.
>yahoo.com> makes sharing a breeze.
>
> _____
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _____
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _____
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _____
>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
><< winmail.dat >>
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list