<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2802" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Take the Pepsi test ! "<FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Just for fun, instead of theorizing a reply, just
take a friend at your <BR>> field, who is a good sport flyer, and ask him to
do a three or four of our <BR>> maneuvers with
turnarounds."</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><BR>Eric.</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 28, 2006 2:31
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] **
Klipped to repost ** Equipmentcostandpartiicpation --</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>More discussion from myself noted by
****************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>No personal criticism intended</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>**********None taken.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>but, the problem with looking at this from
the position of a successful FAI pilot, especially if you were a good
pilot from a very young age, is that you can't really feel that "leap of faith
barrier" that a regular pilot feels, then or today. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>*********My position is that of a 30 year
modeler, with 20 years in pattern, and currently flying F3A. Rest
assured, my memory, while far from perfect, has not forgotten the countless
hours I invested (with many others) discussing and formulating rule changes,
schedule changes, the transition from AMA style to turnaround style, and the
interaction with the pattern community during the transition to turnaround to
do everything we could to keep pattern strong. So far as the "leap of
faith"........I can tell you it was one heckuva leap of faith for a 14 yr old
to drop $240.00 on a 7ch radio w/ dual rates in 1983 and then buy coreless
servos at $60.00 a pop (and I'll never forget Karl Lambroff at Karl's Hobbies
who quietly matched mail order prices for me on big ticket items). Age
is relative, but when I was very young, I certainly couldn't match the skills
of the youth of today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>I have spent most of last year with
regular-club-pilots. Not a few guys that I practice pattern with. Did not
have a pattern-plane with me. They were sort flyers that were pretty good
aerobats with their own planes. based upon what I learned, I can tell you
that turnaround is massively daunting to them. Much more daunting, in fact ,
than trying out a difficult 3-D high alpha maneuver.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>*************You are not the only one to make a
trip to the field without pattern planes and the majority of pilots at
the fields I fly at are not pattern guys. On the days that I have
pattern planes and sport planes, it is often my sport flying that draws more
attention - and it has always been that way - and when asked, my answer is
that my sport flying improved after I became a pattern pilot. Maybe
50-60% of the flights I do are with my pattern planes, and the rest are
with "sport" planes - admittedly high performance for the most
part (and I don't fly IMAC, scale, jets, or gliders).</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>You can't ignore the fact that pattern pilots
left our sport in droves around and after 1985, and never came back. These
guys were not the top liners. They were, however, the mainstay of the sport.
They showed up, paid their fees (said another way paid for the trophies), they
had a great time, created a fun environment and cared more about taking part
than actually winning.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>*************I don't think anyone is ignoring
those that left - but they left for a multitude of reasons - and focusing on
the current day is likely more productive - I doubt what would bring back the
former guys is the same thing that would attract the youth of
today.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>They flew pretty simple planes that could
still do most of center maneuvers today. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>**************Hmmm......not sure I would call a 9
servo tri-gear retract, in-flight mixture control, buried header and pipe,
drag brake equipped 120mph Curare simple.......<G> I think the
real point is that the schedules were simpler - allowing a wider range of
planes to more easily be competitive.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>>There are now plenty of pattern ARF's
but the same thing is not happening, at least not yet.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>*************Agree...not yet...but the ever
increasing number of pattern ARFs is a good sign.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Dave</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If we knew why we could probably fix
it.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Eric.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=DaveL322@comcast.net
href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA Mailing List</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, February 28, 2006
10:59 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] **
Klipped to repost ** Equipment costandpartiicpation --</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Turnaround style pattern reduced noise, noisefootprint, and
overflight area. Pattern would have died (in some areas at least)
without the change to turnaround. The case could certainly be made
that a reduction in numbers of pattern pilots was on the horizon, and
while turnaround reduced the numbers of some, saved the event for
others.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Properly designed schedules can act as building blocks - turnaround
style or not.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Yes, the turnaround schedules today are more difficult than the
non-turnaround schedules of the past, and at the highest levels, it does
help distinguish the top pilots. The increase in difficulty across
all classes is not solely attributable to the turnaround format.
Today's entry and mid level classes are of higher difficulty because "we"
have made them to be that way - continually escalating the difficulty in
the entry and mid level classes with every rules cycle to alleviate
"boredom" and give the lower classes the same amount of airtime as
Masters/F3A. Show me an Intermediate Pilot that can consistently a
rectangular box (ends over the turnaround poles, flat lines at top and
bottom of box) at 150m, and I'll bet you have a future NATs Champion in
almost any class.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Today, I believe the average pattern competitor today is interested
in moving up in class when they can competently fly the class - compared
to the past, when moving up was done after a higher degree of polish was
achieved. Today, it seems the challenge of pattern is getting
through a sequence, and many move up before really learning the
fundamentals in a sequence - compared to the past, when the challenge was
to perfect a sequence, not merely survive it. This is not to knock
anyone currently flying pattern - just an observation on the changes I've
seen. Being able to learn and complete a new manuever or sequence is
a worthy goal, just as is perfecting a manuever or sequence that is easy
to do, but hard to refine. I do quite a bit of coaching, and the
vast majority of the time when a pilot has a problem with a specific
maneuver, it is not the specific maneuver that is the issue - fixing the
maneuver requires taking steps backwards to fix the! ! underlying basics
which were are flawed - and likely would have been better learned if
more time had been spent in the prior class (or classes).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If the appeal of the event is now more focused on more exciting and
flashy maneuvers and longer sequences, compared to precision flying, then
that is exactly the direction pattern has moved. Nothing wrong with
that, if that is what "we" want. A well executed pattern sequence is
very boring to most, and the elements that appeal to the average pattern
guy are not noticeable to the average spectator - that is something that
has always been, and always will be.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV><BR>Dave Lockhart</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">--------------
Original message -------------- <BR>From: "Grow Pattern"
<pattern4u@comcast.net> <BR><BR>> I remember when turnaround
came about! I think that turnaround in its own <BR>> right is not the
issue. Why it came about was valid but is right at the root <BR>> of
many of our problems. <BR>> <BR>> The FAI world needed a more
challenging set of maneuvers. This is not a new <BR>> thing and it is
not uncommon to see a new maneuver cause design changes. In <BR>>
this case the whole schedule changed our design thinking. It then added
a <BR>> degree or two more of difficulty. You no longer could do your
center <BR>> maneuver and then re-group. You were in the judges eye
the whole time. (I <BR>> don't think that the judging guidelines or
the schedule designs ever <BR>> completely caught up either. For
example a top-hat turnaround and all of its <BR>&! amp;! gt;
positioning issues!) <BR>> <BR>> Turnaround created a type of
competition flying where a judge had more <BR>> opportunity to find
errors and thus separate the "men from the boys". <BR>> Turnaround
can therefore be said to have succeeded for the top-end group of
<BR>> flyers. It was clear that they would not be discouraged by
increased <BR>> difficulty. It also grew and created better, but
perhaps fewer, pilots in <BR>> all of the classes. <BR>> <BR>>
What it did to the rest of us is what we are living with today. I
believe <BR>> that it reduced our ranks. Apart from the high
performance equipment and the <BR>> associated costs, you now need
the whole sky to practice. You do not have <BR>> option to bale out
on the approach to a center maneuver if, for example, a <BR>>
sport-plane is on your radar. This drove us out of local fields and we
went <BR>> "stealth!". Pattern is almost as invisible as pylon racing
to a local club!! <BR>&! gt; <BR>> Just for fun, instead of
theorizing a reply, just take a friend at your <BR>> field, who is a
good sport flyer, and ask him to do a three or four of our <BR>>
maneuvers with turnarounds. I doubt if you could inspire him to take up
<BR>> pattern. Then take a pilot and just have him do center
maneuvers, one at a <BR>> time, with a "free" turnaround to set-up.
You will see a big difference in <BR>> the enthusiasm to try that
center maneuver. <BR>> <BR>> I believe that the skill needed to
fly a center maneuver is in most sport <BR>> flyers today, just as it
was in the 80's. That did not change. But ask that <BR>> same skill
to additionally perform scored turnarounds with no mental break <BR>>
and you will see what I mean. I know that these are generalizations but
in <BR>> my person sample of hundreds of club pilots in 20 years of
my time in <BR>> pattern, I have seen it to be the norm. <BR>>
<BR>> Last but not least you can do most of the Masters and FAI
center maneuvers <BR>> w! ith any reas! onably powered sport
aerobatic plane. It was popular to let <BR>> pilots chose a string of
center maneuvers. Why did we take that away from <BR>> our pilots? I
hear "building-block-schedule design" all of the time. Who <BR>> said
that making all of our 401-406 schedules into turnaround would make
<BR>> good building-blocks. <BR>> <BR>> You could have a system
where only 406 (FAI) and 404 (Masters) flew <BR>> turnaround and have
an increase in participation. <BR>> <BR>> Should have stirred this
pot on Monday but was building :-) <BR>> <BR>> Regards, <BR>>
<BR>> Eric. <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> <BR>> -----
Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Del K. Rykert"
<DRYKERT2@ROCHESTER.RR.COM><BR>> To: <GEOBET@GIS.NET>; "NSRCA Mailing
List" <BR>> <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Tuesday,
February 28, 2006 7:33 AM <BR>> Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] **
Klipped to repost ** Equipment cost <BR>> ! andpartiicpati! on --
<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> >I agree with many of the post I h ave
been reading and very much so with <BR>> > George's and Terry's
post. When I look back at the earlier days of <BR>> > pattern
<BR>> > (70's) when all maneuvers were done center stage a person
with fair flying <BR>> > talent could compete and have fun and
good time. Some even came out and <BR>> > compete for the local
pattern event only practicing a little during the <BR>> > week
<BR>> > prior to the pattern contest. The competition bar has been
raised way <BR>> > beyond <BR>> > that stage now and why we
had a few leave when we went to turnaround. We <BR>> > have been
in steady decline for the most part since the beginning of <BR>> >
turnaround. Not looking only at NSRCA numbers but attendance of local
<BR>> > meets <BR>> > from those days. Due to the cost and
poor attendance at some contests <BR>> > clubs <BR>> > have
to do a serious look at justification of holding! events if low <B!
R>> > turnout <BR>> > is result. Cost to compete have risen
and some have to pick and choose <BR>> > which <BR>> > event
we will attend. Not always monetary choice but time choice. I know
<BR>> > there was a time when I would travel 4 hours to a local
contest to have <BR>> > fun <BR>> > and be somewhat
competitive but now with the value of the airplane and <BR>> >
cost <BR>> > of getting to the events rising for me I have to look
at justification if <BR>> > I <BR>> > haven't practiced and
don't know how the equipment is performing I now <BR>> > choose to
stay home work on equipment issues. The sport has become more <BR>>
> complex. One now needs a professional caller at their beck and
call.. Not <BR>> > just some warm body from the flight line. This
is for local events folks.. <BR>> > Not the Worlds or Nat's. All
of these changes do have a price that goes <BR>> &g! t; with
<BR>> &g! t; them. It has improved the caliber and qual ity of
flying and only th ose <BR>> > very <BR>> > strongly
interested now participate. Many have used great and unique ideas
<BR>> > to help recruit new blood. Each idea will not work for all
people or <BR>> > areas. <BR>> > Unfortunately the old days
of just letting new blood approach us are <BR>> > mostly <BR>>
> gone. These issues sure have not helped encourage attendance and
pattern <BR>> > participation IMHO. <BR>> > <BR>> >
Del <BR>> > nsrca - 473 <BR>> > <BR>> > <BR>>
<BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>