[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models bonus!?

[Fred Huber]

It would be more of a hassle than its really worth... and of course everyone 
would quickly work to build planes that gave maximum performance and still 
got the bonus points....


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models bonus!?


> Ok I will try it again. What about a 10 % score bonus for a 1.7m model? 
> 1.5m
> 20%? Encourage the newbie or the guy on a budget and take away the 
> perceived
> advantage without causing obsolescence on current equipment.
> Remember the biplane bonus at the TOC? Wasn't there a size bonus as well
> waaayyy back?
>
> Maybe it needs to be limited to sportsman or intermediate maybe not.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>>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] Smaller Models
>>Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 08:12:11 -0500
>>
>>Yes, that is known as the BPA, Ballistic Pattern Association.  So soon
>>there
>>will be 3 pattern venues to split the already dwindling pattern base :).
>>Ed M.
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Earl Haury" <ehaury at houston.rr.com>
>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:40 AM
>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models
>>
>>
>>Interesting indeed - a local club is considering holding a "ole fashion"
>>pattern contest this fall. The plan is to fly pre-turnaround pattern. Not
>>sure exactly what the rules will be - but not SPA, as the intent is to
>>allow
>>'70's - '80's airplanes with piped engines & retracts (one member 
>>mentioned
>>a Brushfire with piped Jett 90).
>>
>>I'm very comfortable with pattern as it is - however, there is a gap
>>between
>>current pattern and SPA that many seem interested in.
>>
>>Earl
>>   ----- Original Message -----
>>   From: Koenig, Tom
>>   To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>   Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:16 PM
>>   Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models
>>
>>
>>   Guys-there are many of us that reminisce about the 'simpler' days of 
>> the
>>60 size models, even down here!
>>
>>   I mentioned recently to some locals that I may hold a comp similar to
>>your
>>SPA stuff. I considered just allowing 60 size models as a max, never mind
>>all the vintage rules etc.....I was SWAMPED with interest. There were all
>>sorts of ex pattern pilots ready to show up. I think I'd have had 40 -50
>>possible entries!!!
>>
>>   Not trying to stir things up-but it is interesting nonetheless.
>>
>>   Tom
>>
>>     -----Original Message-----
>>     From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Lockhart
>>     Sent: Thursday, 4 January 2007 11:31 AM
>>     To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>     Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models
>>
>>
>>     Yea, smaller has a number of advantages.
>>      A reduction in money, time, hassle factor, etc., of models is a
>>thought
>>toward increased participation.
>>     (Yea, I know the established pilots, and new pilots, are allowed to
>>fly
>>smaller models right now.  But we have a
>>     lot of history  that shows Dean's comment "Given that everyone will
>>build or buy up to the maximum size limit" is true.
>>     How does that Dixie thing go?....<G>
>>
>>     Ron Lockhart
>>
>>       ----- Original Message -----
>>       From: Dean Pappas
>>       To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>       Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 4:51 PM
>>       Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace
>>
>>
>>       Hi John,
>>       A year or so ago, I puit together an Excelleron 90 for a review and
>>eventual sale to a newbie.
>>       Boy! Was it nice to drop a plane into the minivan in one piece!
>>       It was almost as good as when a Phoenix 8 would fit into the back 
>> of
>>a
>>hatchback Camaro in one piece.
>>
>>       Given that everyone will build or buy up to the maximum size limit,
>>       is there a good enough reason to push on the rules bodies to
>>legislate
>>Pattern plane sizes back down?
>>       How about 1.6 or 1.7 meters square?
>>       Will this affect cost and complexity enough to have a beneficial
>>effect on participation?
>>       Or am I just whistling Dixie?
>>
>>       later,
>>       Dean
>>       Dean Pappas
>>       Sr. Design Engineer
>>       Kodeos Communications
>>       111 Corporate Blvd.
>>       South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
>>       (908) 222-7817 phone
>>       (908) 222-2392 fax
>>       d.pappas at kodeos.com
>>
>>         -----Original Message-----
>>         From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
>>[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Ferrell
>>         Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 3:07 PM
>>         To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>         Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Header Brace
>>
>>
>>         There seems to be a growing trend toward smaller airplanes among 
>> a
>>lot of folks. I sure am enjoying the 90 size Boxer I bought from Ed Miller
>>last summer. Less hassle to transport, assemble and fly. That means I can
>>fly more!
>>
>>         John Ferrell    W8CCW
>>         "My Competition is not my enemy"
>>         http://DixieNC.US
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>       _______________________________________________
>>       NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>       NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>       http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>         *PLEASE NOTE* This email and any attachments may
>>         be confidential. If received in error, please delete all
>>         copies and advise the sender. The reproduction or
>>         dissemination of this email or its attachments is
>>         prohibited without the consent of the sender.
>>
>>         WARNING RE VIRUSES: Our computer systems sweep
>>         outgoing email to guard against viruses, but no warranty
>>         is given that this email or its attachments are virus free.
>>         Before opening or using attachments, please check for
>>         viruses. Our liability is limited to the re-supply of any
>>         affected attachments.
>>
>>         Any views expressed in this message are those of the
>>         individual sender, except where the sender expressly,
>>         and with authority, states them to be the views of the
>>         organisation.
>>
>>************************************************************************
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>   _______________________________________________
>>   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
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Fixing up the home? Live Search can help
> http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.5/616 - Release Date: 1/4/2007
>
>