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

Sat Jan 6 09:43:21 AKST 2007

Well at last a comment that to me makes some sense. If the perception from
the person wanting to start pattern is that in order to be competitive
and/or to look like they fit in is to have the latest full 2 meter pattern
plane then I agree a change is needed. I have had those very words said to
me by someone who was interested but did not want to spend the money to be
as they put it "competitive". Perhaps what we need to do is limit the size
of the plane for the entry-level classes. This takes out the feeling of
needing the latest and greatest, limits the cost and perhaps even tells them
they can fly what they have now. I would never support telling them they
have to have a particular plane for the class. They have the freedom of
choice and by the time they are ready for advanced they will be hooked and
can go for the bigger, more expensive stuff if they choose.

Dennis Cone

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed Miller
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:59 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for
thefutureofthePattern 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