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

[John Ferrell]

I remain opposed to that as a rule because I find it unnecessary. As I read 
the rules, the minimum distance to fly is set by safety and the box. We have 
too many rules already.

I believe my personal flying and enjoyment will be satisfied by flying more. 
That means more unplanned trips to the field and possibly shorter sessions. 
I am not purging the 2 meter collection.

If the left over Prophecy kits don't sell I may shorten the tail and 
reconfigure to a 90 size.  I am seeking more fun for me!

As I see it, we are flying a three design competition at this time. They are 
all 2 m, 11 pounds and either electric, 2c or 4c.

With the quirky international judging there may be something new crop up.

How about a pattern twin?

John Ferrell    W8CCW
"My Competition is not my enemy"
http://DixieNC.US

----- 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
>