<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi Leonard.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Hope all is well with
you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2> Del</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </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="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=rudyl11@yahoo.com href="mailto:rudyl11@yahoo.com">Leonard Rudy</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A
title=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> Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:20
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small
Models ...goodfor thefutureofthePattern Event?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<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
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>