[NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - andDifferentAerobaticModel Types
David Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Fri Mar 3 12:31:29 AKST 2006
Dave,
Couple of your points apply equally to pattern - the guys that "talk" about
pattern, and never make it to a pattern contest, can't call out a single
maneuver schedule, etc. And I've come across these guys in areas/club where
they are no active current day pattern pilots resulting in that club/area
being stuck in the past with (mis)perceptions about pattern.
Dave Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dave Michael" <davidmichael1 at comcast.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 9:26 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - andDifferentAerobaticModel
Types
> Ed,
>
> I absolutely sympathize with what you say here. I would feel the same
way.
> The truth is that IMAC planes- the ones actually flown by IMAC
participants
> who go to contests- overall are quieter than they used to be. With
> cannisters, hidden carbs and a three bladed props the noise generated can
be
> quite low. When I fly with this setup on my own 40% planes and the sport
> glow flyers go up I will sometimes come down because I can't hear my
plane.
>
> True IMAC'ers have come a long way- not that we are at the finish line-
and
> be assured that the IMAC board does take it seriously.
>
> I have had to chuckle a bit- I lurk on some of the message boards. There
> are some that have members provide a short bio on their RC interests. I
> can't tell you how often I see someone who lives in my region of the
country
> and who indicates that IMAC is one of their principal interests- but I
have
> never ever seen them at an actual contest.
>
> I described earlier how IMAC has benefited from the explosion in IMAC type
> or IMAC related equipment and events. The VAST majority of flyers who fly
> "IMAC planes" and are considered "IMAC guys" are just sport flyers. I
guess
> everything is a double edge sword- if IMAC is receiving the benefit of
this
> explosion in giant scale aerobatic equipment on the market, then they are
> also being lumped in with this other majority who are labled "IMAC guys"
> because of their equipment only. IMAC cannot control what this group
> does... they can only influence their own members and participants.
>
> In this regard, IMAC is receiving a black eye that they might not always
> deserve. IMAC members should continue to work on getting all particpants
to
> invest in noise reducing equipment for their planes- the technology is
> already there and is not hard to do. However, I would venture to say
that
> most of the damage being done is not by true IMAC competitors.
>
> One other point- I went to the last TOC and to the Don Lowe Masters in
> 2004. Most of the top pattern flyers where there. From the discussion I
> have seen on this list I would have expected that they all would be
> employing the latest noise reduction equipment. That wasn't the case.
> Some did, some didn't. Patterns "leaders" are some of IMAC's "offenders".
>
> Dave Michael
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and
> DifferentAerobaticModel Types
>
>
> > Easier said than done. Especially when the bulk of the membership are
the
> > worst offenders. Before moving to TN, I belonged to a club that I'd say
> > 60%
> > of the active flyers were "buy into the 40% IMAC syndrome". Only 1 ever
> > competed in an IMAC event once yet it was an ever escalating war as to
who
> > had the biggest, LOUDEST and most importantly, most expensive IMAC plane
> > and
> > engine of the week. $10K airframes were not uncommon. None were "true
> > modelers" by any sense of the word, many couldn't open a bottle of CA
let
> > alone spell it. Since our field was literally out in the middle of
> > nowhere,
> > 208 acres of federally protected farm land, the noise or noise foot
print
> > to
> > neighbors wasn't an issue. However, the headaches and near fatal misses
> > I'd
> > experience listening to these idiots hover over the flight line, pits
and
> > parking areas was intolerable. Crashes, and they were frequent, usually
> > were very close to the pits or flight lines. While buddy boxing with my
9
> > year old son, 3 of these stooges proceeded to pull up next to us on the
> > flight line and run a new twin cylinder something with straight stacks
for
> > 10 minutes "to break it in". They placed the prop arc directly in line
> > with
> > my son and I. Sorry, but that experience and many more have placed me
in
> > the "anti giant IMAC camp". In my 44 years as a RC modeler ( I started
at
> > age 5 ) I've seen plenty of giant scale modelers, and I emphasize the
word
> > modelers, with HUGE engines fly, act responsibly and muffle their planes
> > down to a reasonable DB. But the advent of the large IMAC planes and
the
> > well heeled "buy into" crowd who are seeing this venue as an ATTENTION
> > GETTER are the biggest threat to local clubs and our sport. I know the
> > vast
> > majority of IMAC flyers are NOT what I describe and what I describe are
> > the
> > supposed small percentage of bad apples. However, I've experienced way
> > to
> > much of that "small percentage" of bad apples for my taste. The vast
> > majority of responsible IMAC flyers, AMA and local clubs are way overdue
> > reigning this in. But like everything else today, it's all about the
> > money,
> > clubs and the AMA seeking revenue to keep themselves afloat.
> > Ed M.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot at sc.rr.com>
> > To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:31 AM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different
> > AerobaticModel Types
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> >
> >
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list