[NSRCA-discussion] Breakthrough Pattern plane designs

[billglaze]

I wasn't interested in pattern at all, until I saw Dick Hanson's Excell at a meet.  The owner said "it's supposed to be an Extra 300, if you can get past an Extra with retractable gear."
I felt that, if it was possible to fly such a good looking airplane in pattern and do well, (and it was, in fact, possible to do so) then I could take an interest.  I have always preferred airplanes that look like airplanes,and not like an Irish Battle Club. 
Dave Guerin put it very succinctly one time when he said:  "the pattern flyers of today have no idea just how much they owe Dick Hanson."  And, if Dave says it....................... Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 9:09 AM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Breakthrough Pattern plane designs


        Some planes were breakthroughs just because they broke the mold. I would put the Astro Hog in that category. Most others took advantage in advancements in technology. I would put the Bootlegger in that category (tuned pipe internal instead of hanging outside). 

        One plane that has already been mentioned is the Mach I. This advanced pattern into the ballistic age. The thin wing and really streamlined fuselage.... beautiful.

        Someone already mentioned the Focus. What was breakthrough about that was not the design per se, but the fact that it was an affordable ARF that could be built easily yet could (and did) win the NATS. Up until then, you had to pay an arm and a leg for a plane that probably required a LOT of work to be competitive.

        Elements of technology that changed pattern: Digital proportional radios; Retracts; Schneurle ported engines; Tuned pipes; Four-strokes (ok, that was a rule thing, but still...). Lipo batteries made electric pattern not only possible, but competitive.

        I think the biggest changes (won't really call it 'breakthrough') have been the rules. Pattern planes could have been larger than they were had it not been for the limit in engine size. The story I heard was that Duke Fox designed the .78 for pattern, but then they came up with a rule to limit the engine size to .61. Then the rule to allow up to 1.20 four-strokes due to the 'power disparity'. (???) Then came turnaround, and the designs were forced to change. Then the unlimited engine size. I've always said that a lot of manufacturers shy away from pattern since it has always been a moving target. 

        I have to think back to Tom Miller's "Reaction" design. It did not have much impact on the sport, probably because it was too far ahead of its time. Back when guys were still flying ballistic planes with 2 strokes, tuned pipes and retracts, here he comes with a fixed gear, taildragger, fat fuselage (relative to the times), four-stroke plane and said "this is where we are headed". Give that man a prize!!!

        And the beat goes on....

        Bob R.


        --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Woodward, Jim (US SSA) <jim.woodward at baesystems.com> wrote:

          From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA) <jim.woodward at baesystems.com>
          Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Breakthrough Pattern plane designs
          To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
          Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 2:23 PM


          Hi Guys,



          What do you think were some of the most breakthrough or pivotal pattern designs?  When I started there the Prophecy was top dog.  A couple years later the Smaragd was designed.  I see a lot of planes have been designed off the Smaragd platform.  I think the PassPort is a heck of a plane.



          What do you guys think have been some break-out designs over the years that have transformed pattern aircraft design?  In the last nine years, I’d say the Smaragd was the most transformational plane.



          Thanks,

          Jim W. 



_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20081216/86aea811/attachment.html>