[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