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

[Del K. Rykert]

I think your right Eric...  but see how that logic don't mesh with the 
majorities mind set. So let the majority continue with the current trend and 
mind set and drive more away.

                 Del
          nsrca - 473

----- 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
>