[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?

Del K. Rykert drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Sun Jan 7 07:28:17 AKST 2007


I agree Ed.. and goodluck at getting the board and those that manipulate the 
NSRCA and precision aerobatics into seeing that fact.

    Del

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85 at charter.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:11 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small 
Models...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?


> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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