[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good forthefutureofthePattern Event?
vicenterc at comcast.net
vicenterc at comcast.net
Sat Jan 6 05:27:43 AKST 2007
My first contest I used a 4-Start 40. The following year I used a 60 size pattern plane. That was in 94 and 95.
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- Original message --------------
From: <jivey61 at bellsouth.net>
> 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"
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> 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"
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> > 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"
> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> > > 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"
> > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> > >> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20070106/69c3e8eb/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list