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

[george w. kennie]

Yeah,  makes sense to me also. I have never been a person with a lot in the 
way of resources, so when I started out, for the first couple of years I 
flew an Escape, a Calypso, and my own design Sigh-Man with satisfactory 
results usually finishing around third ( I'm not all that talented ). When I 
moved up to bigger airplanes I built from kits and made my own pipes and 
bought the best equipment I could afford and stayed in tents some of the 
time, but eventually the cost factor put me out of the running. The spirit 
is still vital, but overall inflation has brought my ability to participate 
to almost a standstill, so I can relate to what some of the newbies are 
feeling.
I still seem to be able to put together a 90 size ship about once a year to 
keep my fingers limber which requires some sacrifice and dedication, but the 
love of the sport is a burning passion within me that refuses to be 
squelched.
Because of my ability to relate and based upon past experience, it makes 
good sense to me to level the playing field by imposing a 1.75 meter, .90 
cin.displacement limit at the Sportsman and Intermediate level.
What would have to happen to bring about the implementation of such a 
proposal?
Georgie

P.S. Good stuff Ed!



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Dennis" <patternpilot at verizon.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:43 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for 
thefutureofthePattern Event?


> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion