[NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

Thu Jan 4 13:25:36 AKST 2007

Jim, Even at $12-1500.00 That is the average yearly allowance for most
newbies, I could not afford it until the kids left. The old pattern days
ment pattern flying. Now we have the SPA, NSRCA , and several others. If
all is to servive they need to get together and have a mag that can be
enjoyed and start having patteren events, We used to have as meny
pattern events as scale when it was afordable. in a nother 10-15 years
we will be the SPA and the NSRCA will be no more. Then what?

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jim
Woodward
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:35 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

While the $5000k option exists, it is hardly the norm.  There has never
been more selection than there is today.  You can get an Ultra-R/C
Evolution or Rock-n-Roll or Icepoint or Aresti III for about $450 or a
bit higher for a Focus, use a $250 engine, $225 header/pipe combo, and
digital servos/PCM receiver (roughly $450) for a total of $1500.  You
can get a Venus II and OS AX 120 or YS 110 for much cheaper.  There is
hardly a correlation to $$$ spent and actual finished placings in the
contest - it all comes down to practice and knowing your equipment.
There is the Excelleron 90, Explorer 90, and the other .90 plane Eric H
did the reviews on.  Anyone of us who has competed should easily be able
to provide examples to new-comers about how the "little" guy can win in
precision aerobatics if they practice and know their equipment.

I like idea of smaller planes for practice and convenience.  However,
there is really no cost savings in radio setup if you are using a .60
sized model versus a 160 model.  The cost savings would be in using a
smaller engine and smaller airframe.  In my 7 years of pattern flying
its never been cheaper to get a very good and VERY competitive model in
the air than it is today.  

Regarding the Mini-IMaC class, the quote I heard was, ". mini-MAC thew a
party and nobody showed up."  Pattern may be different though as the
"gap" between a small pattern model and a 2M model is quite small
compared to a 60" IMAC bird and a 120" bird.  It might better be served
to promote a different class altogether aimed at the specific "club"
flyers of the hosting club for which they could fly whatever plane they
wanted to in any class, and let them compete against the group or just
each other. 

This seems to only work on the "perception" of "potential new members".
Those same people can elect to fly whatever they like to get started.
I'm sure no CD in the land would reject a first time flyer just so they
can get their feet wet.

Thanks,

Jim W.

  _____  

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 10:18 AM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

I like the idea of .60 2C / .90 4C. I also think that there should be a
minimum weight to keep the hi-tech, high cost, composites at a minimum.
I believe that we would see more manufacturers producing aircraft in
this range if there was a potentially larger - sport flyers -  market
than just pattern flyers. The current cost of a maxed out pattern setup
of $5000+ is ridiculous. Even the lowest cost setup is greater than $1K.

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of
ronlock at comcast.net
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:51 AM
To: NSRCA Mailing List; NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

The field is level now at 2 meter span/length & 11 lb limit.

It could also be level at 1.7 meters similiar as it was years ago using

a .60 displacement limit.

Personally, I found the commaraderie, sportsmanship, competition,

and such that make pattern a joy for me, were same then as now.  But

required less money, time, shop & vehicle space. Less investiment might

assist in attracting new folks and maybe in keeping already active
pilots.   

Then there is the huge issue of transitioning from the present
equipment.

Ron Lockhart

-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: "Keith Hoard" <khoard at gmail.com> 
I know everyone says "Larger models fly better". . . Well, if smaller
models are hard to fly, then wouldn't that naturally level the playing
field a little?

On 1/3/07, Ron Lockhart <ronlock at comcast.net> wrote: 

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 <mailto:d.pappas at kodeos.com>  

To: NSRCA Mailing  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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
<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 <http://dixienc.us/> 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
<mailto: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
<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion> 

-- 

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments,
is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain
confidential and proprietary information.  Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not the intended
recipient(s), please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all
copies of the original message. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070104/12234b20/attachment-0001.html 