[NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
Budd Engineering
jerry at buddengineering.com
Sat Jan 31 08:50:39 AKST 2009
Now that Dave Brown is gone we should try again.
Budd Engineering
jerry at buddengineering.com
http://www.buddengineering.com
On Jan 31, 2009, at 9:18 AM, Gene Maurice wrote:
> A BIG difference is that the IMAC schedules are an addendum to the
> rulebook and DON’T have to go thru a rules cycle to change. We’ve
> tried this and failed to get it past the AMA.
>
> Gene Maurice
> Plano, TX
> AMA 3408 NSRCA 877
> PACSS.sgmservice.com
> gene.maurice at sgmservice.com
>
>
>
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> ] On Behalf Of billglaze
> Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2009 10:13 AM
> To: General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
>
> Sorry, Ed:
> I put it wrongly, and I guess pretty obscurely, also. What I meant
> was, when you and I were on the BOD of IMAC, all classes were
> regarded equally; when sequences changed, they were changed across
> the board, with all classes receiving equal attention. Their
> philosophy remains the same; all classes are equally regarded, and
> new sequences installed annually. As far as I know that is still
> the bedrock of IMAC.
>
> Bill Glaze
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Alt
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 11:53 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
>
> Hi Bill:
> I wasn't aware that IMAC isn't all of the sequences annually
> anymore. When did that change?
>
> Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: billglaze
> To: General pattern discussion
> Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 4:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
>
> Also, Ed, you'll remember when we served together, ALL the classes
> were regarded equally, all receiving new sequences on a regular
> basis; not just the Unlimited contestants.. Bill Glaze
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ed Alt
> To: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com ; General pattern discussion ; jpavlick at idseng.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
>
> I think that a lot of the appeal of IMAC is due to the airplanes
> that are available. Another factor that has appeal is that
> sequences are different every year, and also, the unknown sequences
> at most every contest is popular as well. I flew nothing but IMAC
> from '97 through '03 and it was fun while it lasted. After a while,
> I couldn't live with the changes they were making and I ended up
> here. Both IMAC and Pattern have been great fun and great learning
> experiences, but I do have to say that I have learned more in
> Pattern overall. I also enjoy it more.
>
> I think maybe it boils down to a few subtle things that are just
> different in people. I am pretty much a purist, and what drove me
> away from IMAC was when they ditched the aerobatic box (except in
> theory), when they decided that factoring centering into scoring was
> unfair, and when they purposely added subjective scoring. It just
> grated at me and I knew I could not enjoy it any longer after they
> did that. Pattern isn't like that, and that's why I like it so much
> better. It allows me to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of glow vs.
> gas, allows me to put up with not being able to see a smaller model
> as well, but I do it because I like the way the event is
> structured. There are great people and good friends in both events,
> but I do what I do because it fits me better. We can tweak our
> website and restructure our publication, and it's all good stuff,
> but at the end of the day, you're going to do what you do because it
> fits you best. My $.02 FWIW.
>
> Ed
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: krishlan fitzsimmons
> To: General pattern discussion ; jpavlick at idseng.com
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 10:39 AM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] K-Factor morphed into Grow Pattern
>
> 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
> mostlyvisibility. 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090131/1402f3ea/attachment.html>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list