[NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning

Tue Nov 8 13:25:14 AKST 2016

Since the 5000+50 gram weight rule applies to both FAI and AMA Masters 
and any reasonable rule change proposal regarding removal of the weight 
limitation would apply only to AMA classes below Masters and since the 
airframe designers will design only for the two top classes, how could 
there possibly be any impact on new designs?
Is there any impact on designs right now while the only weight checks in 
this country are done at the Nats?  I don't see it.

The only _possible_ impact to removing the weight limitation on lower 
classes is that someone _may_ come to the Nats in Intermediate or 
Advanced that would have stayed home. Isn't looking at ways to increase 
Nats paticipation where this thread started?

John

On 11/8/2016 2:54 PM, Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion wrote:
> In both cases though these were FAI rules that were also mirrored by AMA.  FAI had a 10cc displacement limit ( .61cu in) and allowed for a 20cc FS.
>
> The 2M rule was already in place, along with the 5Kg weight rule, long before the elimination of the displacement rule, so that was not a trade off.  It just provided “room” for the planes (already 2m in length and width) to grow in volume and height.  Right  now weight is the only thing keeping that in check.  Eventually (with no weight limit) the 2M box would indeed be the final restriction, but not before we see another evolution of larger aircraft.
>
>
>
>
> MARK ATWOOD
> o.  (440) 229-2502
> c.  (216) 316-2489
> e.  atwoodm at paragon-inc.com
>
> Paragon Consulting, Inc.
> 5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
> www.paragon-inc.com
>   
> Powering The Digital Experience
>
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 3:32 PM, Del via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Jim..
> Well I don't intentionally not reply to anyone asking me f/u if your query doesn't not appear in the top of message addressed to me expect I will not realize it is directed at me..
>
> That time frame Jim goes back to the 70's when largest engines allowed were .60 sized displacement. The feeling was to open it up to then weak 4 cycle would help stimulate more selection. I do not have any of my old reg. books from that time frame.. But there used to be a rule no larger than 60 size engine which dictated how big and large the planes could become to fly competitively.. Why many went for the screamers in Rossi's and Webra's with tuned pipes. They were rockets on the downhill.. I was using an Enya and some were using Supertigers.. In order to get a more constituent speed on my Enya I had gone to an 11x8 prop which pulled better in the loops and stall turns but it was not meant to be a piped engine.. It was long stroked compared to the Rossi's and Webra's..  I scored poorly because of the perception factor it didn't lok right compared to all the screamers..  LOL little did I know the trend would change to lower revs. and loading the engine.. I do not recall the exact yea
> r the board and members pushed for the rule change to allow up to 1.20 4 cycles.. I also do not remember the exact year the whole displacement restriction was dropped in favor of the 2m rule to become the limiting factor.. Thanks for asking Jim.. Best wishes to you..
>
> Del
>
> ---- James Hiller via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> Del, I don't remember that 4 cycle motors were ever disallowed. The oldest rule book I have is 84-85 which restricted 4 cycle motors to 1.22 cu in FAI and a 50% calculation in AMA.
>> Jim
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Del via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2016 8:35 AM
>> To: drykert2 at rochester.rr.com; General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning
>>
>> AGAIN ~~ Please realize my words should not be considered as a personal attack on any one individual.. the thoughts of many and often those in power and control lead a mind set that feed and created what we have today.
>>
>> 1.)  The first major step was allowing 4 cycle to enter in the fray.. The justification being presented at that time was Rossi and Webra's where mostly used. Opening the field to 4 cycle would mean new manufacturers to make more
>>
>>
>> ---- Del  via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>> Yes all I can and will be glad to when I have enough time to draft it in the ASAP and no later than sometime tomorrow. Many of the items will be repeats that have been aired before but as long as asked for clarification I will be glad to share.. it does span many years and not a dig for any current officers but to all past voting members and past board members that pushed their agendas. It will take my old mine time as I am not as creative as I once used to be.. lol..
>> Del
>>
>>
>> ---- cahochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> Can you explain that response?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>
>> -------- Original message --------
>> From: Jon Bruml via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Date: 11/6/16  8:32 PM  (GMT-06:00)
>> To: Scott McHarg <scmcharg at gmail.com>, General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>, drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning
>>
>>
>>
>> Ya do so
>>
>>
>>
>> Jonathan W. Bruml
>>
>> Techstyles Sportswear
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _____________________________
>>
>> From: Scott McHarg via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>
>> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 2:14 PM
>>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning
>>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>, <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Del,
>>
>>
>>
>> Please enlighten us about "the decisions that the board was making" and what those consequences were that caused a decline. Please be specific.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, November 6, 2016, Del via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I realize this is beating the dead horse that all ready left the barn... But guys.. you were all warned of the consequences of the decisions that the board was making and the agenda the NSRCA was taking.. Granted many felt for the best of the sport it needed  to have those changes made.. They didn't want to look at the down side of those changes.. that is unfortunate.. But unless a lot of time and some money is spent getting more clubs interested in hosting pattern contest you are not going to stimulate pattern  to the degree you desire.. Many beginners are not about to drive hundreds of miles to a pattern contest they know little about and don't know if they have any interest. A close by field hosting a pattern event that catches a newcomers eye will hook them if  they see it and wish they could do that.. That is what drove many to join pattern.. seeing some of us competing or practicing our skills and said to themselves ~~~ Dang ~~ that guy is pretty good.. Wonder what it takes t
> o
>> be like that... Then you have someone  hooked.. But driving away the little people who were the food sores for future growth was a killer and having clubs fall away from hosting was the 2nd killer.. How many are going to make the investment and commitment if only two or 3 events are held in easy  driving distance for many that have all kinds of demands of family and other commitments on their time.. Those that get hooked make changes in their time commitments to participate as much as they can.. But the sport has to be visible to a portion of the modelers  that all ready fly to grow IMHO..
>>
>>
>>
>> Del
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---- Pete Cosky via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Keith I didn t know you and I were members at the same club..LOL
>>> Seriously the conversation of growing pattern and what we can do and
>>> what is
>>> a good idea keeps coming up but the one thing overlooked in most
>>> conversations is the slice of the pie. I have to say Anthony and Chuck
>>> hit
>>> the nail on the head. No matter what we are competing against other
>>> interests and demands on time.
>>> Growing Pattern   we talk about introducing people to it and making it
>>> easier to attract new blood but we lose sight that this discipline,
>>> and make
>>> no mistake it is a discipline, only appeals to a very few that not
>>> only want
>>> to challenge themselves but then also get ranked against others to see
>>> how
>>> well they are progressing. It isn t for everyone. Making it too hard
>>> is an
>>> issue but so is dumbing it down to the point that people get bored or
>>> its
>>> too big of a jump from the introductory class to Intermediate.
>>> Stopping the exodus of competitors   There is NOTHING that will make
>>> people
>>> stay, life changes and so do priorities. I love pattern and made a lot
>>> of
>>> friends that I miss but I haven t flown a pattern plane in 3 years let
>>> alone
>>> practiced a sequence. I didn t even put up a single RC flight this
>>> year. My
>>> son is 10 and has no desire to fly RC so guess what dad doesn t go to
>>> the
>>> field and miss the baseball game, the Tae Kwon Do testing or even
>>> playing
>>> catch in the yard. My job has changed and that was the start but John
>>> not
>>> wanting to fly was the hammer blow that finally stopped my participation.
>>> Priorities I don t even go to my local club meetings anymore (for a
>>> myriad
>>> of reasons other than time). When John is a little older and dad is
>>> not cool
>>> anymore I can see me flying again.
>>> I will say this and then I will go play catch with John:
>>> Moving the NATS or any other idea may or may not be a good idea but
>>> nobody
>>> knows until we try. If anyone on this list says an idea is bad then
>>> you have
>>> given up before you even tried and that is the same as saying I m not
>>> going
>>> to the contest because I might not place first.
>>> Do I personally think removing the weight limit is bad? Yes I do.
>>> Do I personally think moving the NATS is a bad idea? No I do not.
>>> Do I personally think Anthony should not have bought a smoker and just
>>> used
>>> a barbecue grill? Yes and he know that. :-)
>>> Guys, I wish I was more active and had the time, but the answers
>>> aren t in
>>> fighting or quitting but in trying different things. I have found a
>>> million
>>> ways to fail in my life and I have also found as many ways to succeed
>>> but
>>> that is only because I tried.
>>> Hope to see you all in the coming years.
>>> Pete
>>> From:  NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on
>>> behalf
>>> of Keith Hoard via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Reply-To:  Keith Hoard <klhoard at outlook.com>, General pattern
>>> discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date:  Sunday, November 6, 2016 at 11:53 AM
>>> To:  'cahochhalter' <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>, 'General pattern discussion'
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Subject:  Re: [NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning
>>> I can t even convince the members of my club to obtain the skills
>>> necessary
>>> to keep from crashing into the pits every third flight . . .
>>> So pattern is way out . .
>>> -Keith Hoard
>>> -klhoard at outlook.com
>>> From: NSRCA-discussion
>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>> On
>>
>>> Behalf Of cahochhalter via NSRCA-discussion
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 6, 2016 09:44
>>> To: W Anthony Abdullah <aabdu at sbcglobal.net>; General pattern
>>> discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning
>>> So if we turn pattern in more of a spectator sport wr will attract
>>> more
>>> pilots.
>>> No one has addressed how the hobby itself has changed. The building of
>>> pla
>>> es is gone. 3D, helis, quads, fpv and our general ama focus is no
>>> where near
>>> pattern. Pattern is about the indiviual who decides they want to be
>>> better,
>>> its personal. Its attracting local pilots with other local pattern
>>> individuals thats keepa it going. It's not a magazine article, a
>>> scoreboard,
>>> the Nats, or the NSRCA.
>>> Until we as individuals take responsibility for growing pattern and
>>> dont
>>> place blame on an organization such as the NSRCA for trying to keep up
>>> with
>>> change and no one knows the answer.
>>> No one has mentioned poor judging at Nats, biased judging, lack of
>>> commitment to an event where at yhe end of the week the same few
>>> people are
>>> left to judge finals and then people complain about the lack of
>>> selection as
>>> some districts obviously are more commited than others so the judging
>>> pool
>>> is loaded for different parts of the country.
>>> Comments made online about the success of ensuring some pilots made
>>> the
>>> finals in masters so they dont judge fai.
>>> Do these things not hinder participation in pattern due to the
>>> negative
>>> perception of events and lack of effort to address them.
>>> Moving the nats isnt going to fix anything, but it might bring a
>>> breath of
>>> fresh air into a sport that is stagnant.
>>> Maybe mixing in spa / cpa would allow some cross over between
>>> disciplines,
>>> might both organizations grow?
>>> Chuck
>>> Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
>>> -------- Original message --------
>>> From: W Anthony Abdullah via NSRCA-discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Date: 11/6/16 9:12 AM (GMT-06:00)
>>> To: John Gayer <jgghome at comcast.net>, General pattern discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] My Head is Spinning
>>> I like the scoreboard idea. Perhaps we need to make pattern more of a
>>> "show". Big jet events and even our annual club big bird fun fly has
>>> an
>>> announcer. Imagine Michael Buffer announcing the pilot and calling the
>>> next
>>> maneuver over the PA system <JK>. We don't need to go all WWF but a
>>> little
>>> showmanship wouldn't hurt. Imagine baseball without announcers.
>>> Mark A, don't you dare nominate me as the permanent "color" man. :o)
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> On Nov 5, 2016, at 6:45 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
>>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>> The Contest board has already received a number of proposals to
>>>> change the
>>>> rules.
>>>> There are three that pertain to this discussion:
>>>> 1. Proposal to eliminate the advancement criteria and allow
>>>> contestants to
>>>> step backwards in class at the end of the year
>>>> 2. Elimination of the weight rule for Sportsman, Intermediate and
>>>> Advanced
>>>> 3. Eliminate the box requirements for Sportsman
>>>> I suggest that if you have opinions on these proposals, that you
>>>> find out who
>>>> your representative is, and make your opinion known. It seems clear
>>>> that there
>>>> are some making an attempt being made to address some of the issues.
>>>> Any AMA
>>>> member can propose a rule change. If you feel strongly about any of
>>>> the
>>>> suggestions made in this thread, I suggest you propose a change that
>>>> you feel
>>>> would positively impact pattern.
>>>> Other ideas.
>>>> Something that has been done by the NSRCA is introduction of the Club Class.
>>>> Personally I do not feel that it would be appropriate to add a class
>>>> at
>>>> pattern contests. However it would be a great vehicle for running a
>>>> pattern
>>>> seminar for your area. Come up with some drawing prizes, some
>>>> pattern guys to
>>>> help, someone to cook some hot dogs for lunch, someone(s) to run a
>>>> seminar on
>>>> "what is pattern" and finish up with a couple rounds of club class.
>>>> Make it an
>>>> annual event and make sure the word gets to all the clubs in your area.
>>>> Another thing that needs to be done is to have a real scoreboard. A
>>>> large
>>>> scoreboard. This is essential for any spectators most of which are
>>>> RC flyers
>>>> with no or little exposure to pattern. Without a way to tell what is
>>>> going on
>>>> and who is doing it, a spectator will watch two flights and leave very bored.
>>>> The scoreboard should have:
>>>> 1. Pilots Name
>>>> 2. Photo of pilot and Model
>>>> 3. Scores by round with both raw and normalized scores
>>>> 4. Current standing in class
>>>> 5. Handouts available for:
>>>>>> * What is pattern including explanations of the classes
>>>>>> * Ribbons and Aresti of the sequences being used and explanation
>>>>>> of scoring,
>>>>>> k-factors and normalization
>>>>>> * How about pilot Bios?
>>>> 6. There needs to be someone designated to support the board if you
>>>> have much
>>>> traffic.
>>>> How about a Senior award like IMAC does at local contests? The NSRCA
>>>> used to
>>>> do this at the NATs but it seems to have faded away.
>>>> John
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Scott A. McHarg
>>
>> VSCL / CANVASS U.A.S. Research Pilot
>> Texas A&M University
>> PPL - ASEL
>> Remote Pilot Certified Under FAA Part 107
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20161108/cf364751/attachment.html>