[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models...goodfor thefutureofthePattern Event?
Adrien L Terrenoire
amad2terry at juno.com
Sun Jan 7 08:47:46 AKST 2007
We have done the same thing at the Sayre meets, with nearly the same
results. We did have one guy who flew, I think it was a Goldberg Extra
300. The plane met size limits, but noise was a factor, and I would bet
it was over 11lb.
Over all I think there is a LOT more potential for growth in placing some
reasonable limits on the size, weight, or engine displacement on the
first 2 or 3 classes, than there is in maintaining the current reality of
needing a 2 meter ship to be competitive. "perception is reality"
Terry T.
On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 10:40:51 -0500 "Anthony Romano"
<anthonyr105 at hotmail.com> writes:
> 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.or
g>>
> > 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
@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
@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.or
g>>
> > > 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.or
g>>
> > >> 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.or
g>>
> > >>> 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.ns
rca.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.ns
rca.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.ns
rca.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.ns
rca.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
> > >
> ts.nsrca.org<mailto:NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> > >
>
>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<http://lists.ns
rca.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.ns
rca.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