<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY id=MailContainerBody
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; FONT-SIZE: 12pt; COLOR: #000000; BORDER-TOP-STYLE: none; PADDING-TOP: 15px; FONT-STYLE: normal; FONT-FAMILY: Lucida Sans; BORDER-RIGHT-STYLE: none; BORDER-LEFT-STYLE: none; TEXT-DECORATION: none; BORDER-BOTTOM-STYLE: none"
leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 acc_role="text" CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>Georgie</DIV>
<DIV>The problem with this theory is, what do we do with the guys now flying
Sportsman and Intermediate with 2 meter planes.... I know of several</DIV>
<DIV>guys that will be flying in both of these classes that own two or
three 2 meter planes each.... It would be pretty disasterous for them to
find out</DIV>
<DIV>that they can't use their planes.... Just shy of forcing them to
quit, how do you want to handle this?</DIV>
<DIV>I could see the smaller plane theory for Sportsman as a method to hook
flyers, but on the other hand, I know quite a few guys in the local club that
don't have any planes that would be small enough to fit the rules.....</DIV>
<DIV>Probably the only fair way to handle this problem would be to create a new
Sportsman class with limited size, and leave the other Sportsman class</DIV>
<DIV>open to any AMA legal airplane... This way, we would be inviting
anyone and everyone to fly, just like we are now doing in Sportsman by</DIV>
<DIV>allowing any AMA legal plane to compete in that class.....
Then, by adding another class to a contest, there comes the problems with
logistics of running the contest and having enough qualified judges and
such.....</DIV>
<DIV>Theres no easy solution to any of this, one solution will cause many
other problems.... It is however, very good food for
thought.....</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Rex</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="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A title=mailto:geobet@gis.net
href="mailto:geobet@gis.net">george w. kennie</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=mailto: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> Saturday, January 06, 2007 3:20
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small
Models ...goodfor thefutureofthePattern Event?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>Jerry,<BR>The way I see it is, if there's a rule limit, the guy
already knows it <BR>exists and he is not going to show up with something that
violates the <BR>rules. Additionally, if he owns an Impact, he has already
convinced himself <BR>that he's a proficient enough pilot to fly an Impact and
therefore able to <BR>conclude that he will be more than capable with a
smaller model when <BR>competing against a similar field.<BR>What guy do you
know flying an Impact that doesn't have a stable of smaller <BR>planes that he
plays around with. I'm not sure that it's an issue.<BR>JMO,
Georgie<BR><BR><BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "JFGREEN" <<A
title=mailto:jf217green@cmc.net
href="mailto:jf217green@cmc.net">jf217green@cmc.net</A>><BR>To: "'NSRCA
Mailing List'" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>Sent:
Saturday, January 06, 2007 1:53 PM<BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small
Models ... goodfor <BR>thefutureofthePattern Event?<BR><BR><BR>>
Dennis: Why a limit? What if an interested flyer shows up with an Impact
<BR>> to<BR>> fly sportsman? Are we not going to let him
fly? Sportsman doesn't limit<BR>> what you can fly now and it seems
to work for those who are interested. <BR>> If<BR>> one isn't interested
in competing, will creating limits on their options<BR>> help their
interest? Jerry<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Dennis<BR>>
Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 10:43 AM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing
List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for<BR>>
thefutureofthePattern Event?<BR>><BR>> Well at last a comment that to me
makes some sense. If the perception from<BR>> the person wanting to start
pattern is that in order to be competitive<BR>> and/or to look like they
fit in is to have the latest full 2 meter pattern<BR>> plane then I agree a
change is needed. I have had those very words said to<BR>> me by someone
who was interested but did not want to spend the money to be<BR>> as they
put it "competitive". Perhaps what we need to do is limit the size<BR>> of
the plane for the entry-level classes. This takes out the feeling of<BR>>
needing the latest and greatest, limits the cost and perhaps even tells
<BR>> them<BR>> they can fly what they have now. I would never support
telling them they<BR>> have to have a particular plane for the class. They
have the freedom of<BR>> choice and by the time they are ready for advanced
they will be hooked and<BR>> can go for the bigger, more expensive stuff if
they choose.<BR>><BR>> Dennis Cone<BR>><BR>> -----Original
Message-----<BR>> From: <A
title=mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed
Miller<BR>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 5:59 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA
Mailing List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good
for<BR>> thefutureofthePattern Event?<BR>><BR>> The survey
says.......... Only NSRCA 171 members responded, that in it <BR>>
self<BR>> is another topic of discussion. Point is for the most part,
the 171 that<BR>> did respond are already hooked. This or any other
survey I'm aware of<BR>> wasn't given to the target audience, Joe Newbie
who may want to give<BR>> pattern, NSRCA and competition a try. We
need to develop a strategy to <BR>> add<BR>> to that 171 number, folks
that have yet to join the NSRCA.<BR>> There has been volumes written on
this forum on how to attract the <BR>> "newbie",<BR>> some touting cost,
size of planes, complexity of equipment and schedules <BR>> as<BR>> well
as many other reasons as to why we encounter difficulty enlisting new<BR>>
blood. One constant we can never change ( IMHO ), if an individual does
<BR>> not<BR>> have competition in their blood, we aren't going to be
able to turn them <BR>> to<BR>> the "dark side" short of a
lobotomy.<BR>> On the other hand, there are those out there that might take
the plunge <BR>> but<BR>> look at where pattern equipment evolution has
gone in the last 15 years <BR>> and<BR>> don't see where they fit
in.<BR>> I wish I had a dollar for every OS 91 four stroke I see at fields
every<BR>> weekend powering H9 P-51's, Sticks, H9 AT6's, etc. the list goes
on. <BR>> Along<BR>> our infamous journey, pattern engine evolution has
left behind the sport<BR>> flyer. For years the staple of sport and
pattern flying was the .60 2C.<BR>> Then came the 1.20 4C. Both
engines were within the sport flyers grasp <BR>> and<BR>> if they took a
foray into pattern and it didn't pan out, they could always<BR>> use that
.60 2c or 1.20 4C in the sport plane ARF of the week. Engine <BR>>
size,<BR>> price nor complexity generally was not an issue. An OS 61
FSR with a<BR>> muffler was great for a sport flyer and with a pipe made a
formidable<BR>> pattern engine package back in the day. The original
YS and Enya R 4C 1.2<BR>> engines were reasonably priced, made good power
and were reliable. They<BR>> were happy in the nose of a mid '90's
pattern ship or a Sig 1/4 scale<BR>> clipped wing Cub.<BR>> Along comes
the world of 1.4 to 1.6 pumped 2C, headers and CF pipes <BR>>
costing<BR>> in excess of $700, 1.6 4C with headers, mufflers and 30% fuel
costing way<BR>> over $800 to haul 2M Pregnant Guppy plane of the week
around. Say what <BR>> you<BR>> will but today's politically
correct 2M pattern power plant options are <BR>> for<BR>> the most part
very specific to pattern and virtually nothing else along <BR>>
with<BR>> being expensive. Sure the OS 1.6 is a "sport engine" at
heart and at the<BR>> lowest end of the price spectrum but not in pattern
trim with custom <BR>> headers<BR>> from Karl Mueller, Hatori ( yeah,
try and get those from Tower ), Perry<BR>> pumps and take your pick of
aluminum or CF pipes. The Imac/Giant scale<BR>> crowd have it easy, a
DA 50 or 100 with some cans will power just about<BR>> anything you want to
fly, whether it be aerobatic or scale. The only<BR>> difference is
size. Relatively cheap fuel is readily available at your<BR>>
local gas station. I guess 30% Nitro heli fuel is cheap compared to
90%<BR>> Nitro fuel run in Top Fuel Dragsters so we don't have it all that
bad :).<BR>> Put yourself in Joe Newbie's shoes, he figures he can always
sell the<BR>> pattern airframe if he decides pattern isn't his cup of tea,
but what does<BR>> he do with those expensive pattern specific lumps of
aluminum, steel and <BR>> C/F<BR>> ?? Sure anything can be sold
but at a great loss and to a small target<BR>> audience. Try and sell
a R/E OS 140RX/header/pipe to a guy building a 1/4<BR>> scale Cub. Or
a $800 + single cylinder 4C, that same $$ can buy a twin<BR>> cylinder 4C
with less power but a much quieter, sweeter sound, no <BR>>
vibration<BR>> and I know first hand a whole lot less maintenance.<BR>>
Though I have no intention of giving up my 2M planes and "expensive <BR>>
pattern<BR>> specific lumps of aluminum, steel and C/F" whether they be 2C,
4C or<BR>> Electrons shortly I hope. However, I really believe if
Sportsman and<BR>> possibly Intermediate were limited to .90 displacement,
it would be a<BR>> positive step towards Joe Newbie giving pattern a
shot. Hell, I bet he<BR>> already has a .91
Surpass...........<BR>> Ed M.<BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>>
From: "Grow Pattern" <<A title=mailto:pattern4u@comcast.net
href="mailto:pattern4u@comcast.net">pattern4u@comcast.net</A>><BR>> To:
"NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 7:47 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion]
Small Models ... good for<BR>> thefutureofthePattern
Event?<BR>><BR>><BR>>>
John,<BR>>> I thought
that you might be interested in this information.<BR>>><BR>>> In
the 2005 NSRCA rules change survey (sent out in 2002) I compiled
the<BR>>> following question with the intent of encouraging 60-90 sized
completive<BR>>> airplane development.<BR>>><BR>>> Judging
of distances<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>
Question-65<BR>>><BR>>> Should we therefore consider and AMA
pattern contest rule change that<BR>>> states<BR>>> the pilot
should make the plane appear to be at the size of a 2-meter<BR>>>
plane<BR>>> being flown at 150-175 meters.?<BR>>><BR>>> YES
= 71 NO =
100 RESULT = NO PROPOSED
CHANGE .<BR>>><BR>>> I had been advised that the existing
selection-and-intent of the FAI<BR>>> 150-metres rule was to create a
relatively equal ease of visibility for <BR>>> 2M<BR>>> airplanes
to the judges?? Whether that was true or not I admit to
being<BR>>> very surprised when the idea was rejected so soundly by the
survey<BR>>> respondents.<BR>>><BR>>> I had been thinking
that the smaller planes would fare better if they <BR>>>
were<BR>>> flown in a bit closer. Our rough math had shown that a 60-72"
airplane<BR>>> would<BR>>> look just about right at
100-110-M.<BR>>><BR>>> What would the difference be for a 2-M
airplane and a 1.5-M airplane if<BR>>> flown at their relative
distances?<BR>>><BR>>> I also thought that the budding but slower
electric planes of the day<BR>>> could<BR>>> use the closer in
option and need less extreme (read expensive) power<BR>>>
systems.<BR>>><BR>>> Regards,<BR>>><BR>>>
Eric.<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> -----
Original Message -----<BR>>> From: "John Ferrell" <<A
title=mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net
href="mailto:johnferrell@earthlink.net">johnferrell@earthlink.net</A>><BR>>>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 4:46 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the<BR>>>
futureofthePattern Event?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>> There is no
need to worry about rules changes at this
time.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Those of us dabbling with smaller planes
are doing it with the existing<BR>>>> rules. If winning trophies and
satisfying judging problems are at the <BR>>>> top<BR>>>>
of<BR>>>> your needs you will probably be best served with whatever
is percieved <BR>>>> as<BR>>>> the latest & greatest
equipment.<BR>>>><BR>>>> I have two boxes of trophies out in
the shed. The smaller box is from<BR>>>> when<BR>>>> nobody
better showed up. The larger box is from events that did not
get<BR>>>> enough attendance to give away the trophies. I don't have
strong <BR>>>> feelings<BR>>>> about either
box!<BR>>>><BR>>>> I just want to fly more and enjoy it
more. Right now that appears to be<BR>>>> with<BR>>>> a
little smaller airplane!<BR>>>><BR>>>> John
Ferrell W8CCW<BR>>>> "My Competition is not my
enemy"<BR>>>> <A title=http://dixienc.us/
href="http://DixieNC.US">http://DixieNC.US</A><BR>>>><BR>>>>
----- Original Message -----<BR>>>> From: "george w. kennie" <<A
title=mailto:geobet@gis.net
href="mailto:geobet@gis.net">geobet@gis.net</A>><BR>>>> To: "NSRCA
Mailing List" <<A title=mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>><BR>>>>
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:40 PM<BR>>>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good for the future<BR>>>>
ofthePattern Event?<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>>
Deano,<BR>>>>> When you reference " changing the shape of the
event ", how deep are <BR>>>>> you<BR>>>>> suggesting
things go? Are we losing sight of the fact that we are
part<BR>>>>> of<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>>>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>>>> <A
title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>>>><BR>>><BR>>>
_______________________________________________<BR>>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR>><BR>>
-- <BR>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> Checked by AVG
Free Edition.<BR>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 -
Release Date: 1/5/2007<BR>><BR>><BR>> -- <BR>> No virus found in
this outgoing message.<BR>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>> Version:
7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.6/617 - Release Date:
1/5/2007<BR>><BR>><BR>>
_______________________________________________<BR>> NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR>> <A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR>>
<A title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A>
<BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list<BR><A title=mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A><BR><A
title=http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></BODY></HTML>