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

[Ron Van Putte]

It did more than fail.  The AMA Executive Council refused to allow  
the AMA rules committee to even see it.  I was the author of the rule  
change.

Ron VP


On Jan 31, 2009, at 11:18 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 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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