<html><body>
<DIV>My first contest I used a 4-Start 40. The following year I used a 60 size pattern plane. That was in 94 and 95. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Vicente "Vince" Bortone</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: <jivey61@bellsouth.net> <BR><BR>> Ed <BR>> My first 3 contests in AMA were with a Daddy Rabbit with a OS 91 in it.It <BR>> was not long that I found out,you can't see the plane at the distance we are <BR>> required to fly. <BR>> Then again a 60 sized Boxer won the Nats during that time. <BR>> I am convinced there is no magic to this problem. <BR>> <BR>> Jim Ivey <BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> From: "Ed Miller" <EDBON85@CHARTER.NET><BR>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><BR>> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 8:58 PM <BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ... good <BR>> forthefutureofthePattern Event? <BR>> <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 mig
ht 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" <PATTERN4U@COMCAST.NET><BR>> > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><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>&
gt; > > <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" <JOHNFERRELL@EARTHLINK.NET><BR>> > > To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><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>> > >> http://DixieNC.US <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >&g
t; ----- Original Message ----- <BR>> > >> From: "george w. kennie" <GEOBET@GIS.NET><BR>> > >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><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 <BR>> part <BR>> > >>> of <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> <BR>> > >> _______________________________________________ <BR>> > >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> > >> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> > >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsr
ca-discussion <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>> <BR>> _______________________________________________ <BR>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list <BR>> NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org <BR>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>