[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models...goodfor thefutureofthePatternEvent?
Ed Miller
edbon85 at charter.net
Sun Jan 7 07:12:10 AKST 2007
The scoring bonus is the key. It doesn't immediately wipe out anyone's
equipment. When the TOC gave a bonus for bipes, they were unbeatable.
Giving a small bonus to a .90 4C or .60 2C would over time help facilitate
new folks to the smaller planes, even when their Masters or FAI mentor is
flying the latest 2M ship. For the competitive types entering Sportsman
they would have a leg up on everyone from the start. John Newbie can fly
his .91 sized Surpass, Reactor, Quest, Groovy, the list goes on and
instantly be at a competitive advantage against the 2M high dollar plane.
Keep in mind just how many .90 sized "aerobatic arfs" are currently on the
market. Far easier and more cost efficient for the manufacturers to build,
pack and load in a carton then a 2M ship. Believe it or not the
manufacturers look at the market also, folks at the 2M level jump from plane
to plane depending on what the top guys fly. Not a great market to be in
over the long haul to amortize costs if you are in the business to make $$.
At the Sportsman ranks a 90 sized Quest with a small bonus over a 2M Impact
would be killer. Thumbs on the sticks and fuel or electrons spent is what
really wins but giving an advantage to the would be pattern flyer is our
golden carrot. Folks need to stop thinking at the upper end levels and put
themselves at the entrance door to the playground.
Ed M.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Anthony Romano" <anthonyr105 at hotmail.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:40 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models...goodfor
thefutureofthePatternEvent?
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list