[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

[Keith Hoard]

If you'd eliminate the turnaround maneuvers also, you'd get alot more sport
guys coming back to pattern.
.
Just sayin' . . .
.

Keith Hoard
Collierville, TN
khoard at gmail.com




On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 5:14 PM, Michael Ramsey <milehipilot at gmail.com>wrote:

> Has there ever been any discussion about developing an AMA Pattern class
> that uses aircraft approximately half that of the current 2-meter limits? A
> more affordable way to fly, and be competitive would make contest
> attendance personally more attractive. I'm thinking that the 3DHS Osiris
> would be the benchmark.
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
>
> Michael...
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 4:41 PM, <BUDDYonRC at aol.com> wrote:
>
>> **
>> Mike, Bob and others
>> Having served on the rules change survey committee back in 2005 this all
>> sounds like the e-mail comments some 105 of them that I saved that are a
>> near copy of the current reasons for and against the weight change issue of
>> the current post's.
>>  If you want to look at change and effect to pattern that i think has
>> more to do with attracting new members look at the pattern difficulty.
>> Back in 1996 everything was simple and beginners were shaking in their
>> boots to do an outside loop the most difficult maneuver in FAI was
>> a snap on a 45 down line. I think some possible new bees go to the field
>> watch a while, try a while and leave. True those who have the funds,
>> ability and competitive drive will stay.  By the way I was in favor of the
>> weight change back then but like Bob my dog is in the cage and hasn't
>> hunted in a while and when it does only looks for crippled birds.
>> Buddy B.
>>
>>  In a message dated 3/12/2012 7:33:39 A.M. Central Daylight Time,
>> drmikedds at sbcglobal.net writes:
>>
>>  well spoken, Bob****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> *From:* nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>> nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] *On Behalf Of *Bob Richards
>> *Sent:* Monday, March 12, 2012 4:15 AM
>> *To:* General pattern discussion
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> That may be so, but I don't see how this particular proposal would have
>> that effect. Is anyone serious about leaving the hobby because of the
>> weight rule proposal? Is anyone who was contemplating pattern competition
>> going to be turned off by it?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Keep in mind there will always be chronic complainers. How many times did
>> I hear that "four-strokes are going to ruin the sport" or "turnaround ..."
>> or "noise rules ...", etc etc. Some did leave the hobby, but there will
>> always be turnover. Some of them will feel the need to give an excuse
>> whether it really is the reason. I will say that some of the largest local
>> contests I ever attended were AFTER all of those game-ruining rules that I
>> mentioned. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The whole hobby of model airplanes has changed significantly in the last
>> 10-15 years, with many more venues to divide one's time in the hobby -
>> pattern is an overall smaller piece of the pie as a result. I personally
>> don't think that anything about the rules can be blamed for any downturn in
>> pattern contest attendance. Nor do I think that tweaking the rules we have
>> will magically breath new life into it. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Bob R.****
>>
>>
>>
>> --- On *Sun, 3/11/12, Del <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>* wrote:****
>>
>>
>> From: Del <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
>> To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: Sunday, March 11, 2012, 2:56 PM****
>>
>> *Bob.. *****
>>
>> * *****
>>
>> *Poorly disguised rule changes have driven more from the sport than any
>> words or hashing about the sport. *****
>>
>> * *****
>>
>> *    Del *****
>>
>>  ----- Original Message ----- ****
>>
>> *From:* Bob Richards<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=bob@toprudder.com>
>> ****
>>
>> *To:* General pattern discussion<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org>
>> ****
>>
>> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:22 PM****
>>
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals****
>>
>> ** **
>>
>> Guys,****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> For the life of me, I can't see why everyone is getting bent out of shape
>> over the proposed weight limt rule for the lower classes. It opens up the
>> possibilities for someone wanting to get started in pattern and competing
>> in the lower classes, IMHO. If someone in the upper classes has a plane
>> that is at the weight limit, but is unable to repair the plane without it
>> going over the limit, then it becomes a perfect hand-me-down for someone
>> getting started. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> The fact is that the proposed rule does not exclude any planes that are
>> already legal. The guys that build light know they should have a better
>> flying plane than one that is heavier. The only reason I can think of that
>> people with light planes can get upset with this rule is that someone with
>> a heavier plane might beat them. ****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> OTOH, how often are models weighed at local contests? I never saw it done
>> in the years I flew, but that was before the electrics came on the scene.
>> Tell me, does any CD weigh planes at a local event now? If not, then I am
>> really confused about weight limit discussions where someone says it is
>> ruining things to raise the weight limit, when no one is checking it at
>> local contests anyway. Why all the fuss (one way or the other) about a rule
>> that no one enforces except at the Nats?****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> I really don't have a dog in this hunt. I'm just confused about all the
>> strongly worded comments going back and forth. This, IMHO, does more to
>> turn people off from pattern than any rule change proposal.****
>>
>>  ****
>>
>> Bob R.****
>>
>>
>>
>>  ****
>>  ------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion****
>>
>>
>> -----Inline Attachment Follows-----****
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org<http://us.mc1616.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=NSRCA-discussion@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/20120312/d8569f71/attachment.html>