[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models...goodfor thefutureofthePattern Event?
Anthony Romano
anthonyr105 at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 7 06:41:07 AKST 2007
That is why I suggested a scoring bonus no one gets turned away, no extra
events, no one at a percieved disadvantage. Probably not that hard to update
a scoring program to do it.
For what its worth the last five contest I have run we allowed anything up
to 80" and the last two years any AMA legal airplane with no takers.
Anthony
>From: "Rex LESHER" <trexlesh at msn.com>
>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small
>Models...goodfor thefutureofthePattern Event?
>Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:57:15 -0800
>
>Georgie
>The problem with this theory is, what do we do with the guys now flying
>Sportsman and Intermediate with 2 meter planes.... I know of several
>guys that will be flying in both of these classes that own two or three 2
>meter planes each.... It would be pretty disasterous for them to find out
>that they can't use their planes.... Just shy of forcing them to quit, how
>do you want to handle this?
>I could see the smaller plane theory for Sportsman as a method to hook
>flyers, but on the other hand, I know quite a few guys in the local club
>that don't have any planes that would be small enough to fit the rules.....
>Probably the only fair way to handle this problem would be to create a new
>Sportsman class with limited size, and leave the other Sportsman class
>open to any AMA legal airplane... This way, we would be inviting anyone
>and everyone to fly, just like we are now doing in Sportsman by
>allowing any AMA legal plane to compete in that class..... Then, by
>adding another class to a contest, there comes the problems with logistics
>of running the contest and having enough qualified judges and such.....
>Theres no easy solution to any of this, one solution will cause many other
>problems.... It is however, very good food for thought.....
>
>Rex
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: george w. kennie<mailto:geobet at gis.net>
> To: NSRCA Mailing List<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 3:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ...goodfor
>thefutureofthePattern Event?
>
>
> Jerry,
> The way I see it is, if there's a rule limit, the guy already knows it
> exists and he is not going to show up with something that violates the
> rules. Additionally, if he owns an Impact, he has already convinced
>himself
> that he's a proficient enough pilot to fly an Impact and therefore able
>to
> conclude that he will be more than capable with a smaller model when
> competing against a similar field.
> What guy do you know flying an Impact that doesn't have a stable of
>smaller
> planes that he plays around with. I'm not sure that it's an issue.
> JMO, Georgie
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "JFGREEN" <jf217green at cmc.net<mailto:jf217green at cmc.net>>
> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'"
><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>>
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... goodfor
> thefutureofthePattern Event?
>
>
> > Dennis: Why a limit? What if an interested flyer shows up with an
>Impact
> > to
> > fly sportsman? Are we not going to let him fly? Sportsman doesn't
>limit
> > what you can fly now and it seems to work for those who are
>interested.
> > If
> > one isn't interested in competing, will creating limits on their
>options
> > help their interest? Jerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:
>nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dennis
> > Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:43 AM
> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > 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>
> > [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<mailto:pattern4u at comcast.net>>
> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<mailto:johnferrell at earthlink.net>>
> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<http://dixienc.us/>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "george w. kennie" <geobet at gis.net<mailto:geobet at gis.net>>
> >>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
><nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto: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<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date:
>1/5/2007
> >
> >
> > --
> > No virus found in this outgoing message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date:
>1/5/2007
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> >
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<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
_________________________________________________________________
Get live scores and news about your team: Add the Live.com Football Page
www.live.com/?addtemplate=football&icid=T001MSN30A0701
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list