[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and DifferentAerobaticModel Types
Ed Miller
edbon85 at charter.net
Fri Mar 3 04:39:36 AKST 2006
Joe, are you saying NJ is full of gas ??
Ed M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Lachowski" <jlachow at hotmail.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:58 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and
DifferentAerobaticModel Types
>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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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