[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for thefutureofthePattern Event?

ronlock at comcast.net ronlock at comcast.net
Thu Jan 4 12:46:55 AKST 2007


Yep, part of reason for my Tiger II sport planes is to show 
"precision-ish" aerobatics to potential new pattern pilots.
That may have helped with local recruiting.

But....The nearby 2 meter tends to contradict the message that the
new guys don't need it.   It's presence keeps saying that a 2 meter is 
the logical result of starting down the pattern road.

Later, Ron Lockhart

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net> 

> To entice begiiners into pattern, the question is... "What do I need to 
> compete at Sportsman level"... and for Sportsman, the .60 to .90 size planes 
> are just fine. I've seen a U-Can-Do 3D 60 beat a 2 meter plane... At 
> Sportsman, I'd expect a 60 size "Ultra Stick" to do very well. 
> 
> You can explain the difference in aircraft performance requirements with 
> increasing competiton levels, while standing beside that top end 2-meter 
> plane with 3KW of brushless power (or a 1.60 2-stroke... or even the 
> turbine) in the nose, and not look like you're making things up by::: 
> breaking out a sport model and taking it through the Sportsman sequence to 
> demonstrate. 
> 
> A sport model being controlled by a Pattern flyer looks like a different 
> model than the same plane being flown by an average "sunday flyer". The 
> stick skills show, no matter what the pilot is flying. 
> 
> Actually.. if the pilot's stick skills need work... a sport model can look 
> smoother than the 2-meter Pattern design. My .90 size (e-powered) pattern 
> design shows me EVERY mistake I make. My sport models hide a lot. I 
> "twitch" the pattern plane responds NOW. The sport plane seems to "think 
> about it" for a bit. 
> 
> ************** 
> 
> I still think the Sportsman sequence needs to be CAREFULLY kept such that a 
> .60 size "Ugly stick" or equivilent with a .60 2-stroke in the nose can do 
> all maneuvers easilly. That vertical up-line in the new sequence pushes the 
> edge of what should be in Sportsman... (the .60 size Ugly Stick needs a .91 
> 4-stroke in the nose with that maneuver in the sequence... The .61 2-stroke 
> runs out of steam on the way up.) 
> 
> You want a good Sportsman sequence... have a Sportsman draw it up... not a 
> Masters or FAI competitor. 
> 
> Sportsman is to get the beginners to competition used to flying in front of 
> judges. Sportsman used to be called "Novice"..... and that helped keep the 
> purpose of the class visible. Its there to help new competitors learn to 
> handle the stress of flying for score and to build basic skills needed for 
> higher level competition.... Not to test the vertical performance of the 
> aircraft. 
> 
> Sportsman, in my opinion could withstand having a permanantly fixed 
> sequence. (such as the one that just got superceeded, because I think the 
> new one demands too much out of the aircraft) When a Sportsman competitor 
> gets bored flying that same sequence every contest... its probably time to 
> move up. 
> 
> FHH 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Ed Miller" 
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:32 PM 
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for 
> thefutureofthePattern Event? 
> 
> 
> >I think the fact there are a slew of 60 to 90 sized pattern arfs readily 
> > available at a sub $300 price tag will motivate newbies more than the 
> > cumbersome size issue. If or when a newbie gets hooked, the size issue, 
> > or 
> > lack there of, then is an added benefit. Problem is and we've all been 
> > there is the question "what do I need to compete with". There you stand 
> > touting all the good 60 to 90 size planes out there while trying to hide 
> > your guppy 2M plane of the week............ 
> > Ed M. 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Dean Pappas" 
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> > Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM 
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the 
> > futureofthePattern Event? 
> > 
> > 
> >> Thanks Jay, 
> >> That's why I posted to the list. Between the whole lot of us, we can get 
> >> some coverage. 
> >> Maybe it begs the issue of how to find newbies in the first place ( silly 
> >> grin ) but you might start at the regular club meeting/field. 
> >> Aren't there guys who watch and comment on your Pattern stuff, but don't 
> >> get into the event, in your local club? 
> >> Ask them if they think the entry barrier would change for them or someone 
> >> like them. They may be closer to that prospective newbie than you are. 
> >> They may come back and say that the practice discipline is why they will 
> >> never do it, 
> >> and others may come back and say, "Wow smaller/cheaper planes that fit in 
> >> my car and my apartmenmt workshop! I'm in!" 
> >> I doubt you'll get such clear feedback, but you might get something. 
> >> 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 Jay 
> >> Marshall 
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:58 PM 
> >> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' 
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the future 
> >> ofthePattern Event? 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> Dean, you bring up a very good point. Most of us are seeped in the 2m 
> >> venue. 
> >> We should really be talking to prospective new flyers. How do we do that? 
> >> 
> >> -----Original Message----- 
> >> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
> >> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dean 
> >> Pappas 
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:09 PM 
> >> To: NSRCA Mailing List 
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the future of 
> >> thePattern Event? 
> >> 
> >> Hi Anthony, 
> >> Hi All, 
> >> Forget the implementational details for now. Stop trying to Engineer it, 
> >> we 
> >> are doing Marketting. 
> >> If it helps to get in the right frame of mind, take a few stiff drinks 
> >> and 
> >> bang your head on the workbench about ten times. 
> >> If we decide that it's worthwhile, then there are a zillion ways to make 
> >> the 
> >> transition and to also grandfather existing planes for several years. 
> >> That's not the issue, at least not for now. 
> >> 
> >> Changing the shape of the event: just for "something to do" would be an 
> >> awful waste of energy and needless turmoil. 
> >> We all dislike wasted energy, and I hope that we all agree that needless 
> >> turmoil is to be avoided. 
> >> I really want to focus on the basic question. Will making Pattern ships 
> >> smaller lead to increased future participation in the event? 
> >> If the answer isn't YES, then the grief probably ain't worth it. 
> >> 
> >> So far, I am hearing a mixed bag, and a whole lot of talk about the 
> >> compromises we have all made when buying a vehicle. 
> >> I am there with you. (stow 'n go Grand caravan ... love it) 
> >> But the choir is already saved, and you all already fly Pattern. 
> >> Please go pester the newbies and the folks that you think are potential 
> >> Pattern newbies. 
> >> Will this make a difference as to whether they take the plunge? 
> >> Maybe the answer is that future participation won't be improved. 
> >> 
> >> After we figure out whether future participation will or will not be 
> >> helped, 
> >> then we can figure out what those of us already in the event would like. 
> >> That is an entirely separate question. 
> >> 
> >> thanks for the help, 
> >> 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 Anthony 
> >> Romano 
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:31 AM 
> >> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> >> 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" 
> >>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List 
> >>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> >>>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" 
> >>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" 
> >>>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?.... 
> >>> 
> >>> 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=e 
> >> n-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG 
> >> 
> >> _______________________________________________ 
> >> 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 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -- 
> > 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 
> > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________ 
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070104/cb293aa4/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list