[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - andDifferentAerobaticModel Types

Fri Mar 3 05:13:32 AKST 2006

Maybe a lot of passed gas<g>


>From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
>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 - 
>andDifferentAerobaticModel Types
>Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 08:39:05 -0500
>
>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
>_______________________________________________
>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion