[NSRCA-discussion] Fw: K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern

Thu Jan 29 11:59:16 AKST 2009

I would pay to have Pattern related materials at the store.  Not the K-Factor, I already have those here.
If I can find more space, I will bring all my pattern planes here also.

By the way, do we have a logo that I can cut with vinyl cutter?  Single color is easier to cut.

Ihncheol Park
P & A Hobbies

________________________________
From: Charles Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; jpavlick at idseng.com
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:19:12 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern

Has any thought of having the K Factor available to members online only and that would free up funds to put some in print and send to hobby shops?

Just thinking outloud.

Chuck Hochhalter

--- On Thu, 1/29/09, John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com> wrote:

From: John Pavlick <jpavlick at idseng.com>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 3:01 PM

Jim,
 Interesting observations. In my neck of the woods (Connecticut) there is almost NO IMAC or Pattern competition so I don't see any of this. Part of the reason for that is that it's hard to find large, open areas where you're allowed to fly model airplanes. Let alone have an organized contest. My state pretty much sucks in that regard. There sems to be plenty of room for shopping centers and "retirement communities" however.

Even with these restrictions, I've managed to enlighten a few people and make them aware of Precision Aerobatics. By this I mean IMAC AND Pattern. Some people just don't want to fly Pattern, whereas others simply don't want to fly IMAC. That's fine as far as I'm concerned but the point is they need to know about them. That's where I think Patttern and the NSRCA suffers the most. People simply don't know that we exist. We need to increase our visibility if we want to attract new members. We DON'T need to change anything with how we fly, how we judge, etc. At least not to attract new people. All we need to do is let them know we're here and that they can fly with us if they want to. No pressure to join. Just take your basic sport model to a contest and fly a few rounds in Sportsman. Don't buy a new radio or airplane. Don't worry about the weight or size. Just show up. If we want to grow Patttern, that's one of the things that we need to do. If printed
 copies of the K-Factor at local hobby shops will help with that cause (it just might), then send me a box so I can drop them off. :)

John Pavlick

BTW - I actually did learn about the NSRCA through the K-Factor after a club member handed me a copy that he picked up somewhere. Once I knew that Patttern was still alive in my area (I had taken a LONG hiatus) I built a new airplane, started going to contests and joined the NSRCA.

--- On Thu, 1/29/09, Woodward, Jim (US SSA) <jim.woodward at baesystems.com> wrote:

From: Woodward, Jim (US SSA) <jim.woodward at baesystems.com>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electronic versus Paper K-Factor Poll
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, January 29, 2009, 2:16 PM

JN – there is more to the comparison of IMAC/Pattern than the traceable history to the TOC or available ARF scenario.  I think Jay hit on it something important other day stating something to the effect that, “… if you are not in FAI or Masters you are left on your own.”  (forgive me if it wasn’t Jay or I misquoted).  Pattern and IMAC are totally different in many ways and being that I’m involved in the District/Leadership of each, I’ll list a few in no particular order:
1.       Basic, Sportsman, Intermediate in IMAC:  in a 50 person contest, there are 5 Unlimited, 5 Advanced, and 40 persons spread almost equally between the lower classes 
2.       Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced in Pattern: In a 20 person contest, maybe 3-4 FAI, 7-10 Masters, 8-10 spread between lower classes. 
3.       R/C Clubs view holding an IMAC Contest as a money-making event.  Not so sure for the pattern event. 
4.       Not such a rush to move up in classes in IMAC:  IMAC changes sequences yearly and has unknowns flown each contest, all classes except for Basic.  IMAC classes get harder in a hurry.  For instance the intermediate class will have a 90 degree rolling turn in it and numerous snaps rolls, also a spin.   There is no mercy on unknowns… sometimes they are more difficult than the normal sequence, sometimes easier, sometimes just different.  There is not an expectation that all pilots will reach the “destination” class.  There is no destination class in IMAC.  
5.       Piloting differences?  I find the average IMAC pilot is a fairly high skilled R/C pilot that is learning the precision side of things. You might watch a OK sequence, but later in the evening see them throwing it down on the deck in aggressive Freestyle most of us would dare try.  The Pattern guys grow-up precision and can fly a higher scoring stall turn and have better sequence-fundamentals (and positioning), but lack in some of the other R/C roundness. 
6.       The IMAC ranks have a lot of guys “who used to fly pattern” in them.  I’ve heard it all as to why they stopped flying pattern and here it is (believe me or not , up to you): 
a.       Pattern is too political at the top 
b.      Feeling of Topped out – it didn’t matter how much I practiced, I couldn’t improve my scores or beat that one guy 
c.       Best flights aren’t winning rounds 
d.      Didn’t fit in 
e.      These are opinions range from normal pilots, to “top guys” that only fly IMAC now 
7.       Flying/Positioning – I love the pattern way of flying in a box, with a centerpole – I FREAKIN-HATE the IMAC way of writing sequences with “sort of left, sort of right” maneuvers.  I understand why it is done and such, but I’d take the box anyday.  Flying the box in pattern is its “own-significant-difficulty” which makes the less complex maneuvers harder to do.  The IMAC way lets them “load-up” each maneuver into a super-complex deal – very hard to score well I may add too.  However, its all part of the pie. 
8.       Winning?  In pattern, a win means you flew the sequences the best.  This is cool because often you can “beat” a better pilot, by flying the maneuver you need to know how to do better than the other guys.  In IMAC, usually the “best” pilots wins, because it is a combination of flying the known and unknown. 
9.       Planes?  Pattern planes fly the best, but are harder to fly well.  Pattern planes are less affected by small changes in atmospheric conditions, or good/bad engine days – IE  -- you almost always have enough power in a pattern plane regardless of sequence flown.  IMAC  - totally different.  Humidity (specifically), can DRASTICALLY affect the speed of your plane.  Power requirements change hugely with sequence/class changes.  For instance, unlimited need a truly unlimited power setup.  Not so easy to move up without changing equipment.  A 40% plane is easier to fly “wings-level”, but the judging penalties are 0.5 point per 5 degrees, instead of 1 point per 15 degrees. 
10.   Organizational view on Judging – I don’t know what the NSRCA stance is on judging right now.  In IMAC, there is HUGE $$$ spent on judging programs, seminars, and creating a national standard for judging.  How do they do this?  They fly in people from all around the country for a national-type of judge certification.  These guys then go forth and carry the message. 
a.       Why do they do this?  Because they know that regional differences and biases, or cheating of any kind, can kill-off an organization.  They put a huge leadership and organizational priority on getting judging right.  – if you know me – you know I like that. 

So, there are many, many differences between the two.  Personally, I gravitate towards flying the pattern plane.  However, the “competitive” factors in IMAC are solid too and given the activity around my neck of the woods, you can’t pass it up.  So what’s the point, I guess the point still is that  the total formula is working for IMAC.  The NSRCA formula is not.  What can we take from the differences to tune-up our own game?  And regarding the K-factor – in today’s economy it is hard to justify business decisions that don’t break even.  
Jim 

From:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of J N Hiller
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 8:48 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electronic versus Paper K-Factor Poll

IMAC v/s Pattern is almost an apples to oranges comparison. IMAC popularity can be traced to the TOC and the general appeal of large colorful high performance readily available aircraft but mostly visibility. Pattern flying is absent from many local clubs but large aerobatic airplanes are represented nearly everywhere. The big airplanes attract the press and interests spectators. Pattern by comparison is extremely repetitious and boring to those not directly involved. 
I didn't want to get into this here but I question how many non-pattern folks would read a free K-Factor. There is a free sample available there now. Is anybody finding it? The problem I find is "Pattern" visibility. I couldn't get Google to find the NSRCA when querying aerobatics, RC aerobatics or pattern, however IMAC showed up. It's as if some amount of prior knowledge is needed before an outsider can gain access to pattern activity. 
AMA doesn't do a very good of job explaining competition events or activity and if you don't know follow the SIG you are kind of out of luck. How dose an outsider become aware of and interested in any competition event without knowing where to look? 
As for the K-Factor, the publication is second to none. I have been receiving them since it was several folded 11 x 14 sheets from a copy machine. The content has for the most part remained about the same; mostly contest results and district news. It's more of a competition newsletter with content of interest to those involved and of questionable interest to outsiders or the mildly interested. There is little seed for growing interest in any rulebook event on the Internet. It only happens at the local level with people having fun. 
To be active competitors in either IMAC or pattern requires a fair amount of disposable income and time commitment. We draw from the same shrinking pool of people willing to commit to a weekend out of town to participate in what appears to be a very regimented activity flown near the limit of visibility for many. Bigger really is better and we (Pattern) is somewhat restricted by trying to remain compatible with FAI. 
I have probably gone on too long but I don't believe our salvation lies in a free K-Factor, not that it shouldn't be, it just won't draw many to our sport. 
Sorry Derek, forgive me for splattering this even more. 
Jim Hiller 

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Troy Newman
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 3:44 PM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Electronic versus Paper K-Factor Poll 

Jim, 

What is really amazing is locally here in AZ and Sothern California IMAC contests attract 60-70 pilots. 

IMAC membership is up near 1000 members. They have an online only newsletter. Not even a magazine. 

Why would it be horrible to emulate an organization that is successful like that. 

They can’t be doing anything right they are just IMACers 
Just something to think about. 

Troy
_______________________________________________
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/20090129/5c4bcba1/attachment.html>