[NSRCA-discussion] Aerobatics Mag

Thu Jan 4 16:10:12 AKST 2007

One thing we should do and I believe it was discussed before is to change 
the default name from Pattern to Precision Aerobatics.  I personally think a 
merger of SPA, BPA and NSRCA all under the banner "Precision Aerobatics" 
would be a good thing.  There is strength in numbers, no matter what venue 
of Precision Aerobatics you pursue.  It might even help a newbie take the 
plunge to see all 3 types of events inside 1 newsletter.
Ed M.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Koenig, Tom" <Tom.Koenig at actewagl.com.au>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 5:53 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Aerobatics Mag

Guys, what a superb idea!

Would it even be possible to combine the SIG publications? Now if that 
wouldn't get people to sign up........I'd beat my way to the front of the 
line.

It would be fantastic to see what 'the other guys' are doing-but still under 
the same umbrella.

Ok , now waiting for someone to trash the idea?

Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Tom Mullen
Sent: Friday, 5 January 2007 9:25 AM
To: 'NSRCA Mailing List'
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Smaller Models

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  <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> 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 
<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.

************************************************************************
*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 