<!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 6.00.2900.3020" 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 name="Compose message area" CanvasTabStop="true"
acc_role="text"><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>ANY time a rule is changed, SOMEONE is inconvienced by it. As an earlier
post said, "How many of these fliers don't have a "sport" plane they could
fly?"</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I posted an earlier response that suggested limiting the size of the engine
in the 2 lower classes. That way a 2 meter ship could be used in Int, it would
just be limited to a 120. This way the several guys you refer to below would
still be able to use their current ships. As far as the cost to buy another
engine.....there are a lot of older 60 to 120, two and four stroke engines out
there in the hands of pattern fliers who have "moved up"!</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Terry T</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 15:57:15 -0800 "Rex LESHER" <<A
href="mailto:trexlesh@msn.com">trexlesh@msn.com</A>> writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr
style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; MARGIN-LEFT: 10px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid">
<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>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>