<HTML><HEAD>
<META charset=US-ASCII http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=US-ASCII">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1528" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">
<DIV>
<DIV>Dave </DIV>
<DIV> What you say is very true. There are many sport flyers out there with IMAC type airplanes and appear to be part of IMAC. I am sure we are judged by there flying many times.</DIV>
<DIV> This is another reason why it is so important to have a group active in all club. A group ready to answer IMAC questions We have to (imac) steer these sport flyers into a safe environment within the IMAC membership.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Now back to the pattern group... Many of the pilots on this list remember when we could have taken this same conversation only it would have been the pattern planes that would lose our field. They were loud to fast and the pattern pilots thought who they were ...(that was what I heard I did not agree for sure!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I was President of our local club in NJ ( 3 years) when it was decided to ban pattern planes back about 17 or 18 years ago...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> I certainly did not move that suggestion along. I did my best to show the club that we needed to keep all groups flying in our club. </DIV>
<DIV>IT was said we would lose our fields due to pattern.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> Several other clubs had lost fields due to pattern flying at that time. Pattern did not have a large following and there was not any support within the clubs.(sounds a bit like IMAC right now)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The club in the next town went ahead and put a ban on Pattern flying we did not. Two of the pilots in that club joined our club and remain flying pattern with us.</DIV>
<DIV> (Ray T and MarkT)</DIV>
<DIV> Pattern had a chance to show the club and the community just what it could do for its members and the hobby...</DIV>
<DIV>RAMAC is now one the best clubs in NJ and has held one of the finest pattern events for at least 19 years.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I have to thank Dean Pappas as he is Mr. NJ RAMAC he was one of the main reasons we have had successful events. RAMAC recently presented Dean with an award for his continued support of our pattern contest.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Lets make room for the future and see where it takes us.There is plenty of room for all groups. Fields are a problem but it not due to IMAC. Electric will take over in a big way we all know that. </DIV>
<DIV> I say we might have to travel further but there will be IMAC/Pattern fields and lots to learn in the future from both groups.</DIV>
<DIV>Marguerte Gargiulo</DIV>
<DIV>IMAC 1820</DIV>
<DIV>Pattern 1184</DIV>
<DIV>AMA 168142</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 3/3/2006 9:30:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, davidmichael1@comcast.net writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT face=Arial>Ed,<BR><BR>I absolutely sympathize with what you say here. I would feel the same way. <BR>The truth is that IMAC planes- the ones actually flown by IMAC participants <BR>who go to contests- overall are quieter than they used to be. With <BR>cannisters, hidden carbs and a three bladed props the noise generated can be <BR>quite low. When I fly with this setup on my own 40% planes and the sport <BR>glow flyers go up I will sometimes come down because I can't hear my plane.<BR><BR>True IMAC'ers have come a long way- not that we are at the finish line- and <BR>be assured that the IMAC board does take it seriously.<BR><BR>I have had to chuckle a bit- I lurk on some of the message boards. There <BR>are some that have members provide a short bio on their RC interests. I <BR>can't tell you how often I see someone who lives in my region of the country <BR>and who indicates that IMAC is one of their principal interests- but I have <BR>never ever seen them at an actual contest.<BR><BR>I described earlier how IMAC has benefited from the explosion in IMAC type <BR>or IMAC related equipment and events. The VAST majority of flyers who fly <BR>"IMAC planes" and are considered "IMAC guys" are just sport flyers. I guess <BR>everything is a double edge sword- if IMAC is receiving the benefit of this <BR>explosion in giant scale aerobatic equipment on the market, then they are <BR>also being lumped in with this other majority who are labled "IMAC guys" <BR>because of their equipment only. IMAC cannot control what this group <BR>does... they can only influence their own members and participants.<BR><BR>In this regard, IMAC is receiving a black eye that they might not always <BR>deserve. IMAC members should continue to work on getting all particpants to <BR>invest in noise reducing equipment for their planes- the technology is <BR>already there and is not hard to do. However, I would venture to say that <BR>most of the damage being done is not by true IMAC competitors.<BR><BR>One other point- I went to the last TOC and to the Don Lowe Masters in <BR>2004. Most of the top pattern flyers where there. From the discussion I <BR>have seen on this list I would have expected that they all would be <BR>employing the latest noise reduction equipment. That wasn't the case. <BR>Some did, some didn't. Patterns "leaders" are some of IMAC's "offenders".<BR><BR>Dave Michael<BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Ed Miller" <edbon85@charter.net><BR>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 8:37 AM<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and <BR>DifferentAerobaticModel Types<BR><BR><BR>> Easier said than done. Especially when the bulk of the membership are the<BR>> worst offenders. Before moving to TN, I belonged to a club that I'd say <BR>> 60%<BR>> of the active flyers were "buy into the 40% IMAC syndrome". Only 1 ever<BR>> competed in an IMAC event once yet it was an ever escalating war as to who<BR>> had the biggest, LOUDEST and most importantly, most expensive IMAC plane <BR>> and<BR>> engine of the week. $10K airframes were not uncommon. None were "true<BR>> modelers" by any sense of the word, many couldn't open a bottle of CA let<BR>> alone spell it. Since our field was literally out in the middle of <BR>> nowhere,<BR>> 208 acres of federally protected farm land, the noise or noise foot print <BR>> to<BR>> neighbors wasn't an issue. However, the headaches and near fatal misses <BR>> I'd<BR>> experience listening to these idiots hover over the flight line, pits and<BR>> parking areas was intolerable. Crashes, and they were frequent, usually<BR>> were very close to the pits or flight lines. While buddy boxing with my 9<BR>> year old son, 3 of these stooges proceeded to pull up next to us on the<BR>> flight line and run a new twin cylinder something with straight stacks for<BR>> 10 minutes "to break it in". They placed the prop arc directly in line <BR>> with<BR>> my son and I. Sorry, but that experience and many more have placed me in<BR>> the "anti giant IMAC camp". In my 44 years as a RC modeler ( I started at<BR>> age 5 ) I've seen plenty of giant scale modelers, and I emphasize the word<BR>> modelers, with HUGE engines fly, act responsibly and muffle their planes<BR>> down to a reasonable DB. But the advent of the large IMAC planes and the<BR>> well heeled "buy into" crowd who are seeing this venue as an ATTENTION<BR>> GETTER are the biggest threat to local clubs and our sport. I know the <BR>> vast<BR>> majority of IMAC flyers are NOT what I describe and what I describe are <BR>> the<BR>> supposed small percentage of bad apples. However, I've experienced way <BR>> to<BR>> much of that "small percentage" of bad apples for my taste. The vast<BR>> majority of responsible IMAC flyers, AMA and local clubs are way overdue<BR>> reigning this in. But like everything else today, it's all about the <BR>> money,<BR>> clubs and the AMA seeking revenue to keep themselves afloat.<BR>> Ed M.<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot@sc.rr.com><BR>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 7:31 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different<BR>> AerobaticModel Types<BR>><BR>><BR>> Of course the local clubs are partly to blame in that they don't establish<BR>> and ENFORCE noise rules.<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: Dean Pappas [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On<BR>> Behalf Of Dean Pappas<BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:39 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Noise - Overfly - and Different Aerobatic<BR>> Model Types<BR>><BR>> Hi Dave,<BR>> What I hope we are saying here, is that being smart and making our <BR>> aerobatic<BR>> planes quiet is good for the continued survival of both events. Of course,<BR>> if flyers with large, loud, and far-away 40% planes lose all our practice<BR>> fields and practice sites ...<BR>><BR>> This is just how the West Windsor contest in Jersey became a "first annual<BR>> and only ever" event.<BR>> Sadly, I have to say that two or three IMACers joined the club, and within <BR>> a<BR>> few months, we had no Pattern Contest, a 6:00 P.M. weekday curfew on wet<BR>> power, and neighbors who are now very aware of our existence. Being <BR>> noticed<BR>> ain't always a good thing! Smart noise abatement programs are aimed at<BR>> preventing that first complaint. Once it happens, it's almost too late.<BR>><BR>> To this end, I dearly would like to see the FAI consider a schedule<BR>> change(s) on an emergency basis, to change the existing rolling circles <BR>> into<BR>> rolling-looping figures of some sort. Rolling circles are beautiful, but<BR>> potential flying site killers. The meaningful noise rules and Turnaround,<BR>> both dating back to the visionary changes in the early eighties, were<BR>> necessary to save the event from not being viable World-wide. Further<BR>> efforts along this line are necessary to ensure the continued viability of<BR>> the event: in populated areas, at least.<BR>><BR>> later friends,<BR>> Dean Pappas<BR>><BR>><BR>> -----Original Message----- <BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org on behalf of Dave Michael<BR>> Sent: Thu 3/2/2006 9:36 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Cc:<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC VsPatternParticipation?Does the <BR>> DogHunt<BR>> on points made?<BR>> OK, so what are we saying here? I think it says that Pattern is<BR>> neighborhood friendly and IMAC is noisy and rude. While I don't think <BR>> it's<BR>> as bad as my good friend Ed describes, let's say it's just like that for<BR>> sake of discussion.<BR>><BR>> What does this mean for Pattern?<BR>><BR>> I don't think this really means much for Pattern at all. I have heard <BR>> this<BR>> message before- pattern is good because it is quiet so, for that reason, <BR>> it<BR>> is better and people should want to join in on the fun. That's not a <BR>> strong<BR>> Marketing campaign.<BR>><BR>> Right or wrong, for most potential participants, this is probably not even <BR>> a<BR>> major factor in their decision making process to get involved- you could<BR>> even make the argument that the sound drives some people to and not away<BR>> from IMAC. Now, don't get me wrong- I agree that the big planes should be<BR>> quieter (in fact, they are quieter than a few years ago and we owe that in<BR>> no small part to some of the pattern folks I know and who may be reading<BR>> this message) and that all modelers should work to be good neighbors in<BR>> order to keep flying field and events.<BR>><BR>> However if we are talking about how to get more participation in pattern, <BR>> I<BR>> think we need to look at the product. As I outlined in an earlier post<BR>> today, from a Marketing prospective Pattern faces an uphill battle- it's<BR>> not as interesting to the average flyer (prospective customer) and there <BR>> are<BR>> similar disciplines (other products) that are flashier and get more press.<BR>><BR>><BR>> I got involved in an almost identical discussion on this list a while back<BR>> and, quite frankly, I came away with the feeling that the "core" pattern<BR>> group likes the event just the way it is now and do not want to change it.<BR>> It is perfectly fine to feel that way but you can't have it that way and<BR>> expect to see changes in participation rates. >From where I sit- the <BR>> issue<BR>> of "growing pattern" is just like trying to expand one's business. If you<BR>> are determined to keep producing the same product but are continually<BR>> unhappy with your company sales you need a new CEO....<BR>><BR>> I don't expect that pattern will change much and I'm ok with that. I will<BR>> fly a pattern contest or two now and again because I like the sequence <BR>> work<BR>> the best, I appreciate the precision and performance and I get a huge <BR>> charge<BR>> out of the demonstrated control over the aircraft required to perform a<BR>> really well flown maneuver.<BR>><BR>> But- I would probably fly in more contests and think you would see some <BR>> new<BR>> faces if we tried to spruce up the product a bit. Bill Glaze mentioned<BR>> that he was considering doing unknowns. Bill, to answer your question, I<BR>> would say "go for it" and introduce unkowns. They are a lot of fun! I<BR>> believe that you can further demonstrate your flying abilities by <BR>> performing<BR>> well in the unknowns. It is a real challenge and you feel great when you <BR>> do<BR>> them well.<BR>><BR>> Oh, well, that's enough for now. Gotta go put the cannisters and three<BR>> bladed prop on my 40% Extra..... :)<BR>><BR>> Dave<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt@hotmail.com><BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 7:23 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs PatternParticipation?Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>><BR>> Jay:<BR>> Very true. Several sites formerly used for SA contests have been lost here<BR>> in the NE due to noise / neighbor complaints during contests. I heard <BR>> that<BR>> another contest went away due to liability concerns after a severe injury<BR>> involving a contestant and his own airplane, then there's another which <BR>> very<BR>> sadly is going away because of real estate development (PGRC field).<BR>> There's a lot of history at that field. Anyway, the noise footprint <BR>> concern<BR>> is huge. We had a request for our club to host a 2nd SA contest this year<BR>> because of the loss of so many other sites. We turned it down in part<BR>> because of the fact that the noise rules are now ignored, the box <BR>> boundaries<BR>> went away and the sequences are insane, making the noise footprint problem<BR>> worse than it's ever been. Even as wide open as we think our contest field<BR>> is, we've had complaints and we didn't want to increase the exposure and<BR>> risk. They better figure out what is plainly obvious to at least some of<BR>> us, because the current profile of the event is fairly obnoxious to alot <BR>> of<BR>> people. The hovering next to the pits also has the club member volunteers<BR>> pretty darned annoyed and with them as well as being concerned with<BR>> liability, but the attitude by some is that it's their right - to <BR>> paraphrase<BR>> - "it's IMAC, it's what we do".<BR>><BR>> Anyway, compare the D1 contest calendar to the NE IMAC contest calendar <BR>> and<BR>> tell me again that IMAC is gaining while pattern is losing. Not around <BR>> here<BR>> is isn't.<BR>><BR>> Ed<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: Jay Marshall <mailto:lightfoot@sc.rr.com><BR>> To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 5:24 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation?Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>><BR>> The strongest control is the neighbors closing down the site.<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bill Glaze<BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:59 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>><BR>> Ed:<BR>> I'll tell you of the latest iteration/interpretation when I get back from<BR>> Florida. I'm sure it will be interesting. It is amazing and a little <BR>> more<BR>> than baffling to me that, with the loudest airplanes in modeling, there is<BR>> somewhere between little or no effort to control the noise footprint.<BR>> Bill Glaze<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: Ed Alt <mailto:ed_alt@hotmail.com><BR>> To: randy10926@comtekmail.com ; NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:48 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>><BR>> For all practical purposes, Scale Aerobatics has no box anymore. It <BR>> exists<BR>> as an abstract concept on a piece of paper in that it has a defined <BR>> height,<BR>> width and depth, but since they eliminated the 75 degree markers, there is<BR>> nothing left to measure it against. Additionally, they eliminated the<BR>> concept of zones, so you are free to place things where it seems good to<BR>> place them, i.e., a figure that would appear to be meant for the center of<BR>> the box doesn't have to be flown directly in front of you. Your choice of<BR>> placement has some kind of connection to the so-called Presentation Score <BR>> as<BR>> it was originally 'defined'. There are no deductions for centering<BR>> inaccuracy. Once you enter the box, you still need to get figures in the<BR>> correct order and direction, though cross box figures leave direction (in <BR>> or<BR>> out) to the discretion of the pilot. Currently, there may or may not be<BR>> enforcement of a pure impressionist extra figure known as the Presentation<BR>> Score. It passed as a rule, then everyone was instructed by the IMAC BOD<BR>> not to follow the AMA rule they pushed through. I heard rumblings that<BR>> maybe they are going to allow or encourage CDs to follow that rule again.<BR>> Not sure, I don't really track what they do very closely anymore.<BR>><BR>> Ed<BR>><BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: Glenn Hatfield <mailto:randy10926@comtekmail.com><BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 4:21 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>><BR>> You can fly low slow and close in if you desire. The box that you fly in <BR>> is<BR>> smaller for pattern than IMAC. You get too close in and the box gets <BR>> really<BR>> small. The box is about the right size for a 2 meter at 150 to 170 <BR>> Meters<BR>> parallel to the flight line. You might be able to fly a 50 sized at 125 <BR>> to<BR>> 150 meters. At least I do.<BR>> Randy<BR>><BR>> --- "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot@sc.rr.com> wrote:<BR>><BR>> From: "Jay Marshall" <lightfoot@sc.rr.com><BR>> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:51:24 -0500<BR>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>> I'm new and saw my first contests last year. My first impression was "Why <BR>> do<BR>> they fly so high?" Then I wondered what would happen if I flew low, slow <BR>> and<BR>> close in with a Oxalys 50? Still wondering.<BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of mike <BR>> mueller<BR>> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 2:14 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>> You know what, Keith is right. We have a really good flyer that comes to<BR>> one of our contests about once a year. He flys his whole sequence right <BR>> off<BR>> the deck like a bat out of hell. He's really good and can pull it off. The<BR>> deal excites everyone. It's a blast to watch.<BR>><BR>> Keith Black <tkeithb@comcast.net> wrote:<BR>> Reading the comments here brings the following to my attention.<BR>> Loud "ballistic missile" pattern = Huge popularity.<BR>> Quite graceful pattern flying 150 m away = Boring.<BR>> Huge Loud IMAC planes flying 3D = Huge popularity.<BR>><BR>> I bet if we add an "Extreme Pattern" class where we do high slow rolls and<BR>> snaps ten feed off the deck right over the runway we'd become much more<BR>> popular again. ;-)<BR>> Keith Black<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: Bob Richards <mailto:bob@toprudder.com><BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org><BR>> Sent: Thursday, Ma! rch 02, 2006 8:55 AM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] IMAC Vs Pattern Participation? Does the<BR>> DogHunt on points made?<BR>> Larry,<BR>> Good points.<BR>> A little history, as best as I can remember it.<BR>> At one time, Pattern was the top of the heap. I remember the first RC<BR>> Modeler magazine I bought (circa 1972) had coverage of the Masters<BR>> competition. RC Modeler carried coverage of the large pattern contests <BR>> back<BR>> then. At some point (I don't remember when, exactly) RCM (aka Don Dewey)<BR>> became ticked off at the AMA because AMA chose to publish their own<BR>> magazine. This happened when American Aircraft Modeler magazine went out <BR>> of<BR>> business, they had been publishing the AMA News in the back of their<BR>> magazine. It seemed to me that RCM no longer covered pattern events after<BR>> that. There was a big push by RCM to promote the "Sport Flyers Associat!<BR>> ion", anything AMA sanctioned was left out. (This was my observation).<BR>> Along came the TOC, which actually started out with pattern models. Again,<BR>> t! here was coverage. But, then the TOC went the scale aerobatics route <BR>> (and<BR>> extra points for biplanes, and extra points for mammoth planes -- the rest<BR>> is history).<BR>> Pattern is no longer the premiere event that it used to be. I think it all<BR>> goes back to the WOW factor. There also seemed to be a period where <BR>> pattern<BR>> flyers were looked down upon, usually labeled "snobs". Thank goodnes that<BR>> does not seem to be the case anymore.<BR>> I think the change from loud, ballistic missle type flying to the <BR>> turnaround<BR>> style now has changed the general modeling perception, although it took<BR>> several years for the general modeling public to recognize the change.<BR>> However, the turnaround format seems to have had both a positive and <BR>> negati!<BR>> ve effect. The general modeling public respects pattern more as a result,<BR>> but it also SEEMS to be a barrier for new participants. Again, this is <BR>> just<BR>> my opinion.<BR>><BR>> Bob R.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Lisa & Larry <lld613@psci.net> wrote:<BR>> Eric Henderson wrote**** If we knew why we could probably fix it. ****<BR>>>From my viewpoint trying to get into pattern around 1999 was a major<BR>> challenge.<BR>> I was first introduced to Pattern in Southern California in 1985 when I <BR>> went<BR>> to watch a contest. It took another 15 years to have the time and money to<BR>> do it. For me lack of time was because of my service in the US Navy.<BR>> Difficult to fly when your out at sea and they don't fit too well in a<BR>> locker on the ship...vbg<BR>> ! It took me from 1999 to 2002 to find somebody that new what pattern was.<BR>> Everyone new IMAC and could point me to a pilot that competed, but not<BR>> Pattern.<BR>> What does this mean? Either I'm not a very smart cookie or Pattern is a <BR>> very<BR>> well kept secret (not much has changed since 1999). So how is it that a<BR>> person that new pattern existed took the better part of 4 years to finally<BR>> talk to someone that could help get started?<BR>> Over the last seven years we watched IMAC ARF's take off and sell like hot<BR>> cakes, only in the last couple years have we seen Pattern ARF's on the<BR>> market.<BR>> I went to an RC Airshow north of Bloomington, IN around the spring of <BR>> 2002.<BR>> I watched a pilot fly an Extra for an! IMAC Sportsman Class Demo. I<BR>> approached him and asked him about Pattern and how to get started. His<BR>> response was clear, "Why would you want to fly a toy model plane when you<BR>> can fly a model of a real plane and do the same thing!" Aside from an<BR>> instant turn off from IMAC, it ! set the tone of perception between IMAC <BR>> and<BR>> Pattern. I will most likely start competing in IMAC this year as well as<BR>> pattern. Mostly because there are more IMAC contests in a 5 hour drive <BR>> than<BR>> there are pattern from where I'm located.<BR>> If you compare IMAC and Pattern I don't think the dog hunts in most of the<BR>> arguments I've seen posted in the last few years as they reappear from <BR>> time<BR>> to time.<BR>> 1) IMAC and Pattern planes compare in cost. (That dog won't hunt on <BR>> this<BR>> point)<BR>> 2) 2) IMAC and Pattern take the same ! amount of practice time <BR>> to<BR>> be competitive in a given class. (That dog won't hunt on this point)<BR>> 3) IMAC and Pattern meets are relatively the same driving distance for<BR>> most. (That dog won't hunt! on this point)<BR>> 4) I can find more IMAC contests than Pattern contests (Dog might be<BR>> tracking something on this one)<BR>> 5) Sport pilots know more about IMAC than they do pattern, this is<BR>> speculative but I believe it's the case. (Dog might be tracking something <BR>> on<BR>> this one)<BR>> We need to do a better job marketing Pattern. I think that IMAC has done<BR>> great in this area. The TOC helped IMAC grow and get the word out through<BR>> coverage of a big event. I think we can see a decline in IMAC since the <BR>> last<BR>> TOC. I have not seen or heard of a big contest that gets the publicity <BR>> that<BR>> the TOC received. Even the FAI World Pattern contest is not covered! as <BR>> well<BR>> as the TOC was.<BR>> How do you guys view these points?<BR>> Larry Diamond<BR>> NSRCA 3083<BR>> PS...What Eric does for Pattern in his reporting to magazines is probably<BR>> one of the key factors that he! lps pattern stay afloat. Thanks Eric....<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>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR>> _____<BR>><BR>> Yahoo! Mail<BR>> Bring photos to life! New PhotoMail<BR>> <http://pa.yahoo.com/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=39174/*http:/photomail.mail.<BR>> yahoo.com> makes sharing a breeze.<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>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<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>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<BR>><BR>><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>> 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</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>