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

Del K. Rykert drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Fri Jan 5 06:47:47 AKST 2007


Wow.!!!.   What an ABSOLUTE TRUTH so easily put. Now if we could only get more of the NSRCA leaders to see the light finally. 
 
    Del 
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: NSRCA Mailing List 
  Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for thefutureofthePattern Event?


  You know, I had much better luck recruiting new pattern flyers when I was actively flying my Cap 21 in pattern.

  Bob R.


  ronlock at comcast.net wrote:
    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 contro! lled 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 se! quence. .. 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! . 
      & gt; 
      > 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. 
      > > ----- Origina! l Messa ge ----- 
      > > 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 ar! e. 
      > >> 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 Anthon! y, 
      > >> 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! alread y 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!? 
      > >> 
      &! gt; > ;> 
      > >> 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 p iped 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 > & gt;>>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 
      > >>> 
      > >>> 
      > >&g! t;> 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 
      > >>> 
      > >&g! t;> 
      > >>> 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? 
      > >&g! t;> 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 sm! aller a irplanes 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 s! ender, 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 mailin! g 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 
    _______________________________________________
    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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070105/f3475f46/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list