[NSRCA-discussion] Rules Proposals

Mon Mar 12 14:35:18 AKDT 2012

I don't get what the big deal is about turnaround... Who can't execute a basic reverse cuban, Cuban, or split S at the edge of the box but can execute consecutive loops at show center?

Sent from my iPhone4S

On Mar 12, 2012, at 3:31 PM, "dunnaway at hbcomm.net" <dunnaway at hbcomm.net> wrote:

> 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
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120312/4ae2822a/attachment.html>