<div>Terry,</div> <div> </div> <div>I am in a similar position as Jerry's brother. I have two 2 meter planes. A Focus 2 and</div> <div>a Vivat. In practice, I mainly fly the Intermediate pattern. I have not competed before</div> <div>and would not start out in that class as I would feel very intimated. (It will be bad enough</div> <div>in the Sportsman class.) If I was told I have to fly the Intermediate class, it just would</div> <div>not happen. I would sit it out and watch.</div> <div> </div> <div>Len <B><I> <amad2terry@juno.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">Jerry: <BR><BR>You are first, jumping to the conclusion that anything is going to be<BR>"decided" on this forum, and second that it would go into effect for the<BR>upcoming competition season. Both are VERY far from reality, but a CD<BR>could publish this
intention ahead of time, so your brother could take<BR>another plane, or move up, or stay home.<BR><BR>We are expressing our thoughts on something that we feel could help the<BR>growth of Pattern. OK, you have an specific example that is the<BR>exception, but if your brother IS good enough to fly the Impact, and an<BR>IMAC plane, why not move him up to Intermediate? He certainly is not<BR>going to be challenged by the Sportsman sequence!<BR><BR>Terry T.<BR><BR>On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 17:07:09 -0800 "JFGREEN" <JF217GREEN@CMC.NET>writes:<BR>> Let me give you an example: My brother decided to try pattern. Hes <BR>> a good<BR>> flyer and flew two contests with a 60 trainer. Two contests that <BR>> convinced<BR>> him that he would like to jump into pattern. He bought an impact <BR>> and wants<BR>> to get serious in sportsman this coming year. Possibly he will be <BR>> told<BR>> sorry you can't fly at our contest now because you decided to buy <BR>> near
state<BR>> of the art equipment and it's not fair to those who are less <BR>> fortunate or<BR>> talented than you are. He also bought an IMAC airplane this year. <BR>> If the<BR>> "fairness rule" takes effect he some others I recruited may have <BR>> some<BR>> pattern planes for sale and IMAC will benefit by their <BR>> participation. I<BR>> have nothing against anyone participating in sportsman with any type <BR>> of<BR>> airplane they have, a 60 trainer or an Elexant. How far do we carry <BR>> it? If<BR>> another guy shows up in intermediate with a Twister and I can only <BR>> afford an<BR>> old used Oly, do we give me a handicap on the scoring. What if the <BR>> wind is<BR>> blowing, handicap for the 60 trainer, and my Oly. It wouldn't be <BR>> "fair" to<BR>> do otherwise, would it?<BR>> <BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>>
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of <BR>> george w.<BR>> kennie<BR>> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2007 3:21 PM<BR>> To: NSRCA Mailing List<BR>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small Models ...goodfor<BR>> thefutureofthePattern Event?<BR>> <BR>> Jerry,<BR>> The way I see it is, if there's a rule limit, the guy already knows <BR>> it <BR>> exists and he is not going to show up with something that violates <BR>> the <BR>> rules. Additionally, if he owns an Impact, he has already convinced <BR>> himself <BR>> that he's a proficient enough pilot to fly an Impact and therefore <BR>> able to <BR>> conclude that he will be more than capable with a smaller model when <BR>> <BR>> competing against a similar field.<BR>> What guy do you know flying an Impact that doesn't have a stable of <BR>> 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" <JF217GREEN@CMC.NET><BR>> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <NSRCA-DISCUSSION@LISTS.NSRCA.ORG><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 <BR>> Impact <BR>> > to<BR>> > fly sportsman? Are we not going to let him fly? Sportsman <BR>> doesn't limit<BR>> > what you can fly now and it seems to work for those who are <BR>> interested. <BR>> > If<BR>> > one isn't interested in competing, will creating limits on their <BR>> options<BR>> > help their interest? Jerry<BR>> ><BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]
On Behalf Of <BR>> 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 <BR>> perception from<BR>> > the person wanting to start pattern is that in order to be <BR>> competitive<BR>> > and/or to look like they fit in is to have the latest full 2 meter <BR>> pattern<BR>> > plane then I agree a change is needed. I have had those very words <BR>> said to<BR>> > me by someone who was interested but did not want to spend the <BR>> money to be<BR>> > as they put it "competitive". Perhaps what we need to do is limit <BR>> the size<BR>> > of the plane for the entry-level classes. This takes out the <BR>> feeling of<BR>> > needing the latest and greatest, limits the cost and
perhaps even <BR>> tells <BR>> > them<BR>> > they can fly what they have now. I would never support telling <BR>> them they<BR>> > have to have a particular plane for the class. They have the <BR>> freedom of<BR>> > choice and by the time they are ready for advanced they will be <BR>> hooked and<BR>> > can go for the bigger, more expensive stuff if they choose.<BR>> ><BR>> > Dennis Cone<BR>> ><BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces@lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ed <BR>> 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 <BR>> in it <BR>> > self<BR>>
> is another topic of discussion. Point is for the most part, the <BR>> 171 that<BR>> > did respond are already hooked. This or any other survey I'm <BR>> aware of<BR>> > wasn't given to the target audience, Joe Newbie who may want to <BR>> give<BR>> > pattern, NSRCA and competition a try. We need to develop a <BR>> 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>> <BR>> > "newbie",<BR>> > some touting cost, size of planes, complexity of equipment and <BR>> schedules <BR>> > as<BR>> > well as many other reasons as to why we encounter difficulty <BR>> enlisting new<BR>> > blood. One constant we can never change ( IMHO ), if an <BR>> individual does <BR>> > not<BR>> > have competition in their blood, we aren't going to be able to <BR>> 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 <BR>> plunge <BR>> > but<BR>> > look at where pattern equipment evolution has gone in the last 15 <BR>> 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 <BR>> every<BR>> > weekend powering H9 P-51's, Sticks, H9 AT6's, etc. the list goes <BR>> on. <BR>> > Along<BR>> > our infamous journey, pattern engine evolution has left behind the <BR>> sport<BR>> > flyer. For years the staple of sport and pattern flying was the <BR>> .60 2C.<BR>> > Then came the 1.20 4C. Both engines were within the sport flyers <BR>> grasp <BR>> > and<BR>> > if they took a foray into pattern and it didn't pan out, they <BR>> could always<BR>> > use that .60 2c or 1.20 4C in the sport
plane ARF of the week. <BR>> Engine <BR>> > size,<BR>> > price nor complexity generally was not an issue. An OS 61 FSR <BR>> with a<BR>> > muffler was great for a sport flyer and with a pipe made a <BR>> formidable<BR>> > pattern engine package back in the day. The original YS and Enya <BR>> R 4C 1.2<BR>> > engines were reasonably priced, made good power and were reliable. <BR>> They<BR>> > were happy in the nose of a mid '90's pattern ship or a Sig 1/4 <BR>> scale<BR>> > clipped wing Cub.<BR>> > Along comes the world of 1.4 to 1.6 pumped 2C, headers and CF <BR>> pipes <BR>> > costing<BR>> > in excess of $700, 1.6 4C with headers, mufflers and 30% fuel <BR>> costing way<BR>> > over $800 to haul 2M Pregnant Guppy plane of the week around. Say <BR>> what <BR>> > you<BR>> > will but today's politically correct 2M pattern power plant <BR>> options are <BR>> >
for<BR>> > the most part very specific to pattern and virtually nothing else <BR>> along <BR>> > with<BR>> > being expensive. Sure the OS 1.6 is a "sport engine" at heart and <BR>> at the<BR>> > lowest end of the price spectrum but not in pattern trim with <BR>> custom <BR>> > headers<BR>> > from Karl Mueller, Hatori ( yeah, try and get those from Tower ), <BR>> Perry<BR>> > pumps and take your pick of aluminum or CF pipes. The Imac/Giant <BR>> scale<BR>> > crowd have it easy, a DA 50 or 100 with some cans will power just <BR>> about<BR>> > anything you want to fly, whether it be aerobatic or scale. The <BR>> only<BR>> > difference is size. Relatively cheap fuel is readily available at <BR>> your<BR>> > local gas station. I guess 30% Nitro heli fuel is cheap compared <BR>> to 90%<BR>> > Nitro fuel run in Top Fuel Dragsters so we don't have it all that <BR>> bad :).<BR>>
> Put yourself in Joe Newbie's shoes, he figures he can always sell <BR>> the<BR>> > pattern airframe if he decides pattern isn't his cup of tea, but <BR>> what does<BR>> > he do with those expensive pattern specific lumps of aluminum, <BR>> steel and <BR>> > C/F<BR>> > ?? Sure anything can be sold but at a great loss and to a small <BR>> target<BR>> > audience. Try and sell a R/E OS 140RX/header/pipe to a guy <BR>> building a 1/4<BR>> > scale Cub. Or a $800 + single cylinder 4C, that same $$ can buy a <BR>> twin<BR>> > cylinder 4C with less power but a much quieter, sweeter sound, no <BR>> <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 <BR>> "expensive <BR>> > pattern<BR>> > specific lumps of aluminum, steel and C/F" whether they be 2C, 4C <BR>> or<BR>> > Electrons shortly
I hope. However, I really believe if Sportsman <BR>> and<BR>> > possibly Intermediate were limited to .90 displacement, it would <BR>> be a<BR>> > positive step towards Joe Newbie giving pattern a shot. Hell, I <BR>> 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 <BR>> information.<BR>> >><BR>> >> In the 2005 NSRCA rules change survey (sent out in 2002) I <BR>> compiled the<BR>> >> following question with the intent of encouraging 60-90 sized
<BR>> 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 <BR>> that<BR>> >> states<BR>> >> the pilot should make the plane appear to be at the size of a <BR>> 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 <BR>> FAI<BR>> >> 150-metres rule was to create a relatively equal ease of <BR>> visibility for <BR>> >> 2M<BR>> >> airplanes to the judges?? Whether that was true or not I admit <BR>> to being<BR>> >> very surprised when the idea was rejected so soundly by the <BR>>
survey<BR>> >> respondents.<BR>> >><BR>> >> I had been thinking that the smaller planes would fare better if <BR>> they <BR>> >> were<BR>> >> flown in a bit closer. Our rough math had shown that a 60-72" <BR>> 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 <BR>> airplane if<BR>> >> flown at their relative distances?<BR>> >><BR>> >> I also thought that the budding but slower electric planes of the <BR>> day<BR>> >> could<BR>> >> use the closer in option and need less extreme (read expensive) <BR>> 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 <BR>> existing<BR>> >>> rules. If winning trophies and satisfying judging problems are <BR>> at the <BR>> >>> top<BR>> >>> of<BR>> >>> your needs you will probably be best served with whatever is <BR>> percieved <BR>> >>> as<BR>> >>> the latest & greatest equipment.<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> I have two boxes of trophies out in the shed. The smaller box is
<BR>> from<BR>> >>> when<BR>> >>> nobody better showed up. The larger box is from events that did <BR>> not get<BR>> >>> enough attendance to give away the trophies. I don't have strong <BR>> <BR>> >>> feelings<BR>> >>> about either box!<BR>> >>><BR>> >>> I just want to fly more and enjoy it more. Right now that <BR>> 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>> >>> ----- 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 <BR>> future<BR>> >>> ofthePattern Event?<BR>> >>><BR>> >>><BR>> >>>> Deano,<BR>> >>>> When you reference " changing the shape of the event ", how <BR>> deep are <BR>> >>>> you<BR>> >>>> suggesting things go? Are we losing sight of the fact that we <BR>> are part<BR>> >>>> of<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>> >> 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>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list<BR>> > NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion<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: <BR>> 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: <BR>>
1/5/2007<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>> 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: <BR>> 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: <BR>> 1/5/2007<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></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p> __________________________________________________<br>Do You Yahoo!?<br>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <br>http://mail.yahoo.com