<html><body>
<DIV>Below from John Pavlick</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Forwarded Message: -------------- <BR>From: John Pavlick <idsmail@sbcglobal.net> <BR>To: DaveL322@comcast.net <BR>Cc: d.pappas@kodeos.com <BR>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent? <BR>Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:37:35 +0000 <BR>
<DIV>Dave,</DIV>
<DIV> Since I can't post to the list (I'm at work)...</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You may recall my Sportsman adventure at Black Dirt a few years ago. I know Dean does: Flying my Super Kaos Jr - the OS 40 FSR lost compression because of a bad piston. I flew 4 rounds with that plane (man was that FUN - it barely had enough power to make the second loop let alone maintain "constant speed") and still managed to finish in the top 3. One of the other pilots was flying Don Sczur's old Focus. I bought my first Focus 1 (Ed's old one) that Sunday after the contest was over. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The truth of all this is if you WANT to FLY Pattern you will. No matter what. Look at Merrill. He pounds a plane, pulls out an Ugly Stik and plods on. I wish people could just admit that not everyone WANTs to fly Pattern (or CAN). I've found the guys near me who do: Merrill, Chris Iorio and a few others. If everyone did the same we'd have a bunch of new guys. I'm the only one with 2-meter stuff. We don't need to change anything with the current state of "Pattern" except our concept of reality. Making it possible for anyone to fly Sportsman with a Nexstar is not going to help anything. Let's just admit it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>John Pavlick</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR><B><I>DaveL322@comcast.net</I></B> wrote:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">
<DIV>Fred,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The 10 will happen if I am in the chair. And if any of the judges training has sunk in at all, the majority of judges will score a 10 (in a perfect world, all would award the 10).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You listed constant speed as a judging criteria - it is NOT.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you are downgraded by a judge solely on the basis of a change in airspeed, the judge is WRONG.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Will flying constant airspeed potentially avoid a downgrade from a poor judge? Maybe.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Will advocating judging criteria that are not in book degrade the judging system? Definitely.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps Bob Richards (a NATs winner in Masters to recall) might recount the year he had engine troubles at the NATs resulting in very erratic flight speeds but he still scored well because he flew by the book. Perhaps another on this list might recount Rick Allison finishing a flight at the NATs with a lean engine that got progressively worse and seized up in the last maneuver - and he still earned very respectable scores.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>From a piloting and flight technique perspective, maintaining constant airspeed is desireable for many reasons. If you are not familiar with them, ask, you might even find some guys on this list with a bit of experience that could elaborate.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dave</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>