[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good forthefutureofthePattern Event?

Fri Jan 5 17:48:47 AKST 2007

Ed
 My first 3 contests in AMA were with a Daddy Rabbit with a OS 91 in it.It
was not long that I found out,you can't see the plane at the distance we are
required to fly.
Then again a 60 sized Boxer won the Nats during that time.
I am convinced there is no magic to this problem.

Jim Ivey
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good
forthefutureofthePattern Event?

> The survey says.......... Only NSRCA 171 members responded, that in it
self
> is another topic of discussion.  Point is for the most part, the 171 that
> did respond are already hooked.  This or any other survey I'm aware of
> wasn't given to the target audience, Joe Newbie who may want to give
> pattern, NSRCA and competition a try.  We need to develop a strategy to
add
> to that 171 number, folks that have yet to join the NSRCA.
> There has been volumes written on this forum on how to attract the
"newbie",
> some touting cost, size of planes, complexity of equipment and schedules
as
> well as many other reasons as to why we encounter difficulty enlisting new
> blood.  One constant we can never change ( IMHO ), if an individual does
not
> have competition in their blood, we aren't going to be able to turn them
to
> the "dark side" short of a lobotomy.
> On the other hand, there are those out there that might take the plunge
but
> look at where pattern equipment evolution has gone in the last 15 years
and
> don't see where they fit in.
> I wish I had a dollar for every OS 91 four stroke I see at fields every
> weekend powering H9 P-51's, Sticks, H9 AT6's, etc. the list goes on.
Along
> our infamous journey, pattern engine evolution has left behind the sport
> flyer.  For years the staple of sport and pattern flying was the .60 2C.
> Then came the 1.20 4C.  Both engines were within the sport flyers grasp
and
> if they took a foray into pattern and it didn't pan out, they could always
> use that .60 2c or 1.20 4C in the sport plane ARF of the week.  Engine
size,
> price nor complexity generally was not an issue.  An OS 61 FSR with a
> muffler was great for a sport flyer and with a pipe made a formidable
> pattern engine package back in the day.  The original YS and Enya R 4C 1.2
> engines were reasonably priced, made good power and were reliable.  They
> were happy in the nose of a mid '90's pattern ship or a Sig 1/4 scale
> clipped wing Cub.
> Along comes the world of 1.4 to 1.6 pumped 2C, headers and CF pipes
costing
> in excess of $700, 1.6 4C with headers, mufflers and 30% fuel costing way
> over $800 to haul 2M Pregnant Guppy plane of the week around.  Say what
you
> will but today's politically correct 2M pattern power plant options are
for
> the most part very specific to pattern and virtually nothing else along
with
> being expensive.  Sure the OS 1.6 is a "sport engine" at heart and at the
> lowest end of the price spectrum but not in pattern trim with custom
headers
> from Karl Mueller, Hatori ( yeah, try and get those from Tower ), Perry
> pumps and take your pick of aluminum or CF pipes.  The Imac/Giant scale
> crowd have it easy, a DA 50 or 100 with some cans will power just about
> anything you want to fly, whether it be aerobatic or scale.  The only
> difference is size.   Relatively cheap fuel is readily available at your
> local gas station.  I guess 30% Nitro heli fuel is cheap compared to 90%
> Nitro fuel run in Top Fuel Dragsters so we don't have it all that bad :).
> Put yourself in Joe Newbie's shoes, he figures he can always sell the
> pattern airframe if he decides pattern isn't his cup of tea, but what does
> he do with those expensive pattern specific lumps of aluminum, steel and
C/F
> ??  Sure anything can be sold but at a great loss and to a small target
> audience.  Try and sell a R/E OS 140RX/header/pipe to a guy building a 1/4
> scale Cub.  Or a $800 + single cylinder 4C, that same $$ can buy a twin
> cylinder 4C with less power but a much quieter, sweeter sound, no
vibration
> and I know first hand a whole lot less maintenance.
> Though I have no intention of giving up my 2M planes and "expensive
pattern
> specific lumps of aluminum, steel and C/F" whether they be 2C, 4C or
> Electrons shortly I hope.  However, I really believe if Sportsman and
> possibly Intermediate were limited to .90 displacement, it would be a
> positive step towards Joe Newbie giving pattern a shot.  Hell, I bet he
> already has a .91 Surpass...........
> Ed M.
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:47 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for
> thefutureofthePattern Event?
>
>
> > John,
> >         I thought that you might be interested in this information.
> >
> > In the 2005 NSRCA rules change survey (sent out in 2002) I compiled the
> > following question with the intent of encouraging 60-90 sized completive
> > airplane development.
> >
> > Judging of distances
> >
> >
> > Question-65
> >
> > Should we therefore consider and AMA pattern contest rule change that
> > states
> > the pilot should make the plane appear to be at the size of a 2-meter
> > plane
> > being flown at 150-175 meters.?
> >
> > YES = 71        NO = 100          RESULT = NO PROPOSED CHANGE .
> >
> > I had been advised that the existing selection-and-intent of the FAI
> > 150-metres rule was to create a relatively equal ease of visibility for
2M
> > airplanes to the judges??  Whether that was true or not I admit to being
> > very surprised when the idea was rejected so soundly by the survey
> > respondents.
> >
> > I had been thinking that the smaller planes would fare better if they
were
> > flown in a bit closer. Our rough math had shown that a 60-72" airplane
> > would
> > look just about right at 100-110-M.
> >
> > What would the difference be for a 2-M airplane and a 1.5-M airplane if
> > flown at their relative distances?
> >
> > I also thought that the budding but slower electric planes of the day
> > could
> > use the closer in option and need less extreme (read expensive) power
> > systems.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Eric.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the
> > futureofthePattern Event?
> >
> >
> >> There is no need to worry about rules changes at this time.
> >>
> >> Those of us dabbling with smaller planes are doing it with the existing
> >> rules. If winning trophies and satisfying judging problems are at the
top
> >> of
> >> your needs you will probably be best served with whatever is percieved
as
> >> the latest & greatest equipment.
> >>
> >> I have two boxes of trophies out in the shed. The smaller box is from
> >> when
> >> nobody better showed up. The larger box is from events that did not get
> >> enough attendance to give away the trophies. I don't have strong
feelings
> >> about either box!
> >>
> >> I just want to fly more and enjoy it more. Right now that appears to be
> >> with
> >> a little smaller airplane!
> >>
> >> John Ferrell    W8CCW
> >> "My Competition is not my enemy"
> >> http://DixieNC.US
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----- 
> >> From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net>
> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:40 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the future
> >> ofthePattern Event?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Deano,
> >>> When you reference " changing the shape of the event ", how deep are
you
> >>> suggesting things go?  Are we losing sight of the fact that we are
part
> >>> of
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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