<div> Hey we are not alone. I have heard that IMAC is dwindling also. They suffer from too expensive, high tech, size restriction problems. THey are being driven away from many of the fields across America. At least we have a managable airframe size. With the new gas engines coming in we will attract some new people. If IMAC continues with it's problems we could get some of our buddy's back. IMAC and Pattern have more in common than most would admit.</div> <div> The idea that competition of any kind is appealing to a large group is naive. We have turned a corner and I see interest being on the rise. One indication is the popularity of the small F3A electric planes on the market. Mike<BR><BR><B><I>Mike Hester <kerlock@comcast.net></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Real quickly, I don't think pattern is dying, I think it is evolving, <BR>changing, shifting areas of activeness.
While it's numbers are dwindling in <BR>some places, the numbers are on the increase in others.<BR><BR>one thing I think would be a mistake would be to change the airframe rules <BR>in pattern. they are stabilized, and I don't think changing them would have <BR>any positive long lasting effect. if anything, it could worsen the <BR>situation. Stability fosters enginuety, and some people are rising to the <BR>challenge of both leading edge technology, and old school methods. When you <BR>learn how to seamlessly blend both, you create more options.<BR><BR>Think about how wide open our airframe and power rules really are: power is <BR>virtually unlimited, airframe is an empty 2 meter box with a maximum weight <BR>of 5 k or 11 lbs, and the noise requirement...but if they can get a 40% <BR>within the noise requirements, then that's no longer an issue.<BR><BR>What we have to do, all of us, is foster a fun but competetive atmosphere. <BR>We need to reach out to people on a grass roots level
and get them <BR>motivated. We need to slay the perception that you must have a $3000 <BR>airframe and $2-3000 worth of electric power or you're wasting your time. I <BR>hate that crap. And we need to ALL make sure that we don't even <BR>subconsciously give the edge to a guy with the latest greatest electric set <BR>up, because by doing so think what message we'll be sending to the guy that <BR>really can't afford that kind of investment right now, today. in the future <BR>who knows.<BR><BR>if you haven't heard, ZDZ is coming out with a new 40cc f3A engine this <BR>summer. this thing will turn as large of a prop as the electrics. The weight <BR>increase over glow isn't even half as bad as electric. This alone could do <BR>great things for us in crossing certain invisible barriers.<BR><BR>Then again, maybe not =)<BR><BR>Sorry to ramble, must be the paint fumes.....<BR><BR>-Mike<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Ryan Smith" <SMARAGDZ@BELLSOUTH.NET><BR>To:
<NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2006 12:51 PM<BR>Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Was Mini Brio, Now Pattern Longitevity<BR><BR><BR>I honestly don't think that you have to spend out the butt to have a <BR>competitive setup. The keeping up with the Joneses syndrome is the prevalent <BR>factor that makes everyone think that pattern is so ungodly expensive. There <BR>are plenty of options out there for people to create a cost-effective, <BR>competitive two meter rig. But alas, people out there think they HAVE to <BR>have the biggest best and fastest everything, when in reality, there is no <BR>way in hell most newer fliers out there can discern between a slightly <BR>inferior and cheaper product and a top of the line product (a big example <BR>here would be digital servos as opposed to analog servos). There are <BR>certainly MANY viable options out there for a cheap two meter setup that <BR>will be competitive in the long run. The best example I can see of
this is <BR>Mark Hunt, down in the Houston area. His airplane, the Insight, is all wood <BR>and foam, and can be built with maybe $150 worth of wood (I'm throwing a <BR>generous estimate out there), not to mention the plans are like $25. He is <BR>actually running an OS 1.60 on a standard muffler and is still making the <BR>noise restrictions. Mark exemplifies what people just starting out in <BR>pattern need to look into, not only because it's cheap, but the airplanes <BR>are simple to maintain and I would venture to say bulletproof. I bought a <BR>set from him a while back and haven't had the chance to build one, but I <BR>really would like to. I would like to do what he's doing and and outfit it <BR>with analog servos and make it otherwise plain jane and see just how it <BR>stacks up to the rest of the field out there. There are also several other <BR>wood airplanes out there that are a little more extravagant, such as the <BR>Black Magic v2 by Mike Hester and the Quest and
Shindin by Bryan Herbert <BR>that are being drawn in CAD and being kitted. Look at the airplanes that the <BR>Japanese team members fly- they're all wood. And look at where they place. <BR>Most if not all are always in the top ten, and young Tetsuo Onda even placed <BR>second this year. That's a heck of a feat for anyone, mu<BR>ch less an eighteen year old who is flying against people who have been <BR>modeling twice as long as he's been living.<BR><BR>Another point, the theory of everyone flying the same thing has <BR>never worked, not in fullscale and not in models. The One Design class never <BR>caught on in full scale, however there are many examples of that airplane <BR>flying. In IMAC, there are worries about everyone using consistent <BR>batteries, motors, servos, and such, and if you have to be dictated that <BR>much on what you can and cannot fly, it takes the fun out. Also, in IMAC, it <BR>is commonplace to see high end airplanes in Basic and Sportsman just because
<BR>people want to get that advantage that they really get through burning fuel. <BR>I know everyone hates to hear that, but it is the truth. Once you start to <BR>see improvements in your own flying after having flown a lot, then you see <BR>what everyone preaches about when they say fly a bunch. I really don't think <BR>that pattern dying is really directly related to cost, but if you want to <BR>make it such let's break down Jay's idea. How cost effective is it to make <BR>someone buy something that they can't use in upper classes and would have to <BR>buy a new setup every year. Shouldn't we be showing people that they can go <BR>and get a nice setup that they can actually use and enjoy? Not to mention <BR>the fact that you can reuse the equipment should you decide (or your thumbs <BR>decide) to get a new airframe. I think the cost factor is implemented by <BR>people who don't really have the desire to succeed and have to use that as a <BR>scapegoat to cover what they see as
their failures.<BR><BR>I honestly think pattern needs an overhaul. It's not the cost <BR>that really drives people away, it's the ideology surrounding it that does. <BR>People see pattern as being boring and too easy, and generally not exciting. <BR>However, with the advent 3D flight, and people becoming attracted to model <BR>airplanes because of it, they really want to hone their skills. I have seen <BR>a lot of subtle hints dropped by some past pattern flyers who write for <BR>magazines telling people to look into pattern if they really want to become <BR>better at 3D. I also think that we need more promotion. Model Aviation has <BR>cut down the pattern column in the magazine to every other month, yet there <BR>are other facets in there that get full coverage that really don't need it. <BR>If we want pattern to survive, we really need to get publicized where it <BR>counts- where we're going to be attracting people. Advertising in the K <BR>Factor does nothing for the growth of
pattern because we're all already <BR>interested enough in it to subscribe. But there are people out there who <BR>don't know and maybe would like to. I can't tell you how many times on RCU <BR>I've seen someone post in the Pattern Forum "What is Pattern Flying?". Most <BR>are usually creative in what they think it is, but nevertheless, the same <BR>group sets them straight. I think we should get on the AMA to get us more <BR>coverage and other magazines as well, such as Model Airplane News, 3D Flyer, <BR>etc. I believe THAT is what will help us, not making people buy some little <BR>electric that they won't be competitive with.<BR><BR>Thanks for taking the time to read this guys, please feel free <BR>to respond.<BR><BR><BR><BR>Regards,<BR><BR><BR><BR>Ryan Smith<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>
<hr size=1>Yahoo! Mail<br>
Bring photos to life! <a href="http://pa.yahoo.com/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39174/*http://photomail.mail.yahoo.com">New PhotoMail </a> makes sharing a breeze.