[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Mon Mar 12 14:31:34 AKDT 2012

Maybe adding a non-turnaround class is an option we should look at.

Joe Dunnaway

Sent from my HTC Inspire™ 4G

----- Reply message -----
From: "Keith Hoard" <khoard at gmail.com>
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals
Date: Mon, Mar 12, 2012 17:22
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 

To: General pattern discussion 

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://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/c8959f2e/attachment.html>