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

[Ed Alt]

Agreed. There's the Aquila and...

Ed
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <seefo at san.rr.com>
To: <jpavlick at idseng.com>; "General pattern discussion" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>; <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern


>
> Pattern really needs a new competitive ARF to enter market at a reasonable 
> price point. Something like $500. In fact.. it needs several of them so 
> people can have choices in what to fly.
>
> With IMAC, you can get an airplane of the same size (2m), RTF including 
> engine and radio for what the majority of the ARFs cost for a pattern 
> airplane airframe only.
>
> Getting the costs under control should be #1 priority.
>
>
>
> ---- krishlan fitzsimmons <homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Well said John..
>>
>> On another note, didn't this start out as a "please take an online vote" 
>> email.
>>
>> On even another note, Imac is a different bird. More people may be 
>> interested in flying IMAC IMO because there is the freestyle. Foamies 
>> have made a great impact so that anyone can huck in their front yards. 
>> Kids are really into the foamies and the freestyles because they are fun, 
>> and impressive. We lack this fun type of flying in their minds. (Not to 
>> me, 3d is somewhat boring to me, except for foamies)
>> As someone stated earlier, pattern doesn't have the market flooded with 
>> $400-500 arfs that almost every person at my field and other fields 
>> locally have. If we did, I know of many people at my field that would buy 
>> one. They have told me so. Every time I bring a new plane to the field, 
>> people ask me how much, and where can they get one. When I tell em how 
>> much, their face drops...Wanna grow pattern, do something like Hester. 
>> He's on the right track IMO. Look at all the ads in the larger magazines, 
>> how many pattern planes do you see in those ads?
>>
>> Chris
>>
>> --- 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, 7:01 AM
>>
>> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion