[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models...goodfor thefutureofthePatternEvent?
Del K. Rykert
drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
Sun Jan 7 08:22:37 AKST 2007
Good point Anthony... So if no takers and we had same situation when we
held contest in Rochester, NY What is the solution? We even offered a kit
to the winner in Novice but still no takers. So even with what seems like
reasonable enticements if it doesn't garner any interest then we are
flogging a dead horse.
Del
----- 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