<!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 6.00.5730.11" 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"
bgColor=#ffffff leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 name="Compose message area"
CanvasTabStop="true" acc_role="text">
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=2><FONT size=5><STRONG>The issue is... if
you want people to TRY Sportsman Pattern Competition.... you DON'T
want the Sportsman sequence to keep getting more difficult and to keep demanding
more power</STRONG>.</FONT> <FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Unless you want to have to add another new Class making it: Novice,
Sportsman, Intermediate, Advanced, Masters, FAI... and setting the Novice class
as a PERMANENT sequence a little easier than the last cycle's Sportsman.
(defeating the reasoning behind Novice behind renamed to Sportsman....
whatever that reasoning was.)</FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">*******************</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">The plane could hold constant speed, old
sequence, original prop. and did fine in wind. I flew it in wind that had
everyone else at the field packing up. I have NEVER been afraid to fly in
any wind, or other weather, I was willing to stand in...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">My general problem with maintaining constant
speed <STRONG><U>was</U></STRONG> a tendancy to leave throttle firewalled and
end up unable to compensate for slowing as it pulled up into a loop... and
accelerating like crazy on the back half of the loop (making the next loop even
worse) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">It was not an issue with the original setup in
the old sequence.... (which the plane was taken through flawlessly by someone
who flys a higher class) I did say I took up Pattern to cure some problems
with flying skill... and it works to find the issues and to practice the skills
needed to fly better and break fewer planes.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Constant speed improves the maneuvers, and
makes them look better... thus scores better. (whether constant speed in
itself is judging criteria... I keep hearing of speed change within any
given maneuver being downgradeable... It even was discussed in the Snap-Roll
debate...) </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman">Quit trying to blame the plane's need for more
power to do the new sequence on the plane, when it needs more power for the new
sequence because... the new sequence DEMANDS more
power. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"> I SOLVED my plane's need for the power
demanded to perform the new sequence. I just have to recharge (or
change batteries, a second set of packs {2 X 3700 mah 20C 3S LiPos per set} was
the cheapest solution to needing more capacity) each pass through the sequence,
or I'm out of electrons before the second pass through is over...</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT> </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=trexlesh@msn.com href="mailto:trexlesh@msn.com">Rex LESHER</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> Monday, January 08, 2007 12:25
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><!--[gte IE 5]><?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->
<DIV>
<DIV>I'm just guessing here, but you were probably using full power a lot last
year in that sequence.... which tells me that</DIV>
<DIV>it was severely underpowered then. Which would also be part of the
reason you are/were having such variable speed</DIV>
<DIV>problems. I'm also guessing that no matter what you do, you don't
have enough pitch speed for windy conditions. You would need </DIV>
<DIV>somewhere around an additional 300 rpm on a given prop for the windy
conditions, above what you need just to fly the</DIV>
<DIV>sequence in calm air... That would probably be a minimum needed
increase. Sounds like you need a different motor/battery
combo</DIV>
<DIV>to solve the dillemma... </DIV>
<DIV>As far as the constant speed thingy goes, it sounds like you were having
great variances in speed, usually at the tops of manuevers, </DIV>
<DIV>causing you to pinch off the radius... As a pilot, you may not
notice the severity of the change in speed or see how it's taking you </DIV>
<DIV>off your line. The "more advanced" competitors were probably trying
to clue you in to what was happening by suggesting to you to</DIV>
<DIV>try to keep a more constant speed. Doing so, gives you much better
timing, therefore allowing you to draw better manuevers...</DIV>
<DIV>My advice would be to get more power than you need, so you can compete on
an equal level, no matter what the weather conditions.</DIV>
<DIV>If your just wanting to be a casual competitor and competition isn't
really your thing, then just disreguard all of the above...</DIV>
<DIV>It's still a lot of fun to do, and really helps with our flying
abilities....</DIV>
<DIV>Best of luck</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:fhhuber@clearwire.net href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">Fred
Huber</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> Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:52
PM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re:
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>With e-power... changing props changes power.<BR><BR>13X6.5
and 14X6... the 14X6 will draw slightly less power. Since we lost
<BR>power but gained static thrust.. where's the power loss show up?
Lost <BR>speed. If a plane is already a little marginal on speed for
handling wind, <BR>reducing pitch is a problem. Also if you want to
try plaing the game of <BR>trading airspeed for vertical, loss of speed is a
disaster.<BR><BR>Rated prop for my motor is the 14X8. The 13X6.5 was
being used because it <BR>was enough and gave the increased flight time for
2 rounds of the old <BR>schedule.<BR><BR>Find anyone flying Masters level
flyer who thinks its a good idea to allow <BR>speed to change in a maneuver
and will complain about downgrade if speed <BR>varies noticeably.
Maybe its one of the points that fall in S&G... I'm not <BR>bothering to
look it up Maneuvers that have speed vary when its not <BR>supposed to
look sloppy.<BR><BR>The more advanced competitors who are coaching me are
CONSTANTLY telling me <BR>to maintain constant speed throughout loops, half
cubans, Immelman, Split S <BR>and the cobra... Since they are likely
to sit in the judges' chairs durring <BR>contests when I fly (they HAVE sat
in judges chairs when I have flown at <BR>contests...) I know I had better
maintain constant speed within any given <BR>maneuver.<BR><BR>And if its
marginal at its current setup... then thats proof that the new <BR>schedule
demands more from the plane than the old schedule.... Which means <BR>the
new schedule increased the cost of entry to competition at Sportsman
<BR>level.<BR><BR>Since this is supposed to be about how to entice beginners
to fly Pattern <BR>(not about why my plane needs to be upgraded to meet the
demands of the more <BR>difficult schedule) and percieved cost of getting
started is one of the <BR>stumbling blocks to enticing beginners to the
sport: The new schedule <BR>demanding a higher performance plane is
contrary to the purpose of the <BR>Sportsman class. My aircraft
performance issues are just an example of the <BR>increased performance
demanded.<BR><BR>----- Original Message ----- <BR>From: "Ken Thompson"
<<A title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@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:
Sunday, January 07, 2007 11:01 PM<BR>Subject: Re:
<BR>[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR><BR><BR>>
While I certainly agree with the added expense of larger battery
packs<BR>> would make this combo seem out of reach for most Sportsman
pilots, an<BR>> E-plane in general would do the same. An increase
of 500 to 700 mAh in <BR>> size<BR>> would go a long way in increasing
your time in the air while not adding a<BR>> seriously detrimental
increase in weight.<BR>><BR>> I agree in the judging criteria for
losing speed, hence my statement about<BR>> increasing your speed into
the maneuver. You don't need to jerk the model<BR>> into vertical
to tighten the radii a "little". The only reason for<BR>>
tightening that radii is to allow a tighter radii at the top, hence
making<BR>> them equal. Considering the fact I said you could
possibly shorten your<BR>> uplines a little, certainly doesn't constitute
an interpretation that I<BR>> meant to shorten it to 5'.<BR>><BR>>
I agree with the slowing down in your upline of the stall turn,
however,<BR>> that isn't what makes a stall turn a stall turn. It's
the stopping at the<BR>> top that makes it a stall turn. Of course,
I agree with you that the<BR>> slowing down in your vertical line of the
stall is inevitable. If <BR>> someone's<BR>> plane is running
out of "climb" at the top of their stall turn, and they<BR>> have to
maintain fuul power to make a respectable height, their power is<BR>>
marginal, at best.<BR>><BR>> The difference in props will not change
your level flight speed enough to<BR>> make your model incapable of
handling windy conditions, only increase your<BR>> pull in the up lines,
which if you fly the path, not the nose, it will <BR>> help<BR>> you
with your vertical lines in the wind.<BR>><BR>> As for the necessity
of the 91 4-stroke motor over the 61 2-stroke, I <BR>> can't<BR>>
argue with that fact. The 4-stroke has it's "power curve" in a lower
RPM<BR>> range while allowing it to swing a larger prop thus increasing
thrust. <BR>> You<BR>> could also decide to go to one of the 90 sized
2-strokes and have a ton of<BR>> power while staying within the weight
limits you are looking for, all <BR>> while<BR>> saving money over the
same size 4-stroke. Please understand I know all <BR>>
of<BR>> this motor talk costs money, that I won't
dispute.<BR>><BR>> I certainly wish I was close to you geographically,
I would love to come<BR>> over and see if there was some way we could
work out your power problem <BR>> with<BR>> the new
sequence.<BR>><BR>> Ken<BR>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>>
From: "Fred Huber" <<A title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.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: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:54 PM<BR>> Subject: Re:<BR>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>><BR>><BR>>>
these packs are $250 a set... Larger ($300 to $500 a set) brings
model<BR>>> weight up requiring larger motor (lets spend another $250
to $400) and <BR>>> you<BR>>> end up at 1.5 KW before it will
perform with the added weight. So that <BR>>> is<BR>>> not
an option.<BR>>><BR>>> CONSTANT SPEED is a judging
criteria. So unlimited vertical is a<BR>>> requirement for a
vertical up-line.... unless you want to be downgraded<BR>>>
for<BR>>> losing speed.<BR>>><BR>>> Stall turn you can
slow down on the way up... you have to or its not a<BR>>> stall-turn,
its a wingover = 0'd the maneuver.<BR>>><BR>>> If you have
inadequate power for the up-line a tighter pull will kill<BR>>>
speed<BR>>> due to higher G forces... counterproductive.
And sticking 5 ft of<BR>>> up-line<BR>>> at 1/4 normal loop
radius then pushing isn't going to score well even if<BR>>> line
length is not a judging factor.<BR>>><BR>>> This is reality from
actually flying the model.<BR>>><BR>>> Sure, the 14X6 will give
some more static thrust compared to the <BR>>> 13X6.5...<BR>>>
and lose airspeed... which equates to not handling
wind.<BR>>><BR>>> It all adds up to... what WOULD work for the
old Sportsman WON'T do the<BR>>> new<BR>>>
sequence.<BR>>><BR>>> And I note you didn't comment on the glow
power model's need for a change<BR>>> from a .60 2-stroke to a .91
4-stroke for MARGINAL ability to do the<BR>>> up-line<BR>>> when
the .61 was JUST FINE for the old sequence.<BR>>><BR>>> These
are planes I have actually flown. Results that have been
proven.<BR>>><BR>>> The new Sportsman sequence needs more
power:weight (static thrust, to get<BR>>> vertical ascent capability
as the main factor requiring more power) than<BR>>> the<BR>>>
old sequence.<BR>>><BR>>> Someone's going to pop up saying that
a .61 2-stroke can make more BHP<BR>>> than<BR>>> a .91
4-stroke... Sure... if you want to run the 2-stroke spinning
a<BR>>> small<BR>>> prop as fast as the engine will turn.
Measure static thrust with props<BR>>> you'd<BR>>> actually fly
Pattern with. USEABLE power from the .91 is superior...
and<BR>>> the 4-stroke with stock muffler weighs less than the 2-
stroke with stock<BR>>> muffler. The .91
wins.<BR>>><BR>>> ----- Original Message ----- <BR>>>
From: "Ken Thompson" <<A title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@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: Sunday, January 07, 2007 9:41 PM<BR>>> Subject: Re:<BR>>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>>>
Fred,<BR>>>><BR>>>> At the risk of seeming
argumentative, I don't entirely agree with your<BR>>>>
statements. I'm relatively new to flying, especially Pattern, but
there<BR>>>> are<BR>>>> a few things I've learned in my 3
years of competition.<BR>>>><BR>>>> In doing a stall turn,
you want to run out of forward motion at the top,<BR>>>>
not<BR>>>> necessarily power. It's possible you may be trying
to extend your lines<BR>>>> too<BR>>>>
far.<BR>>>><BR>>>> As for the vertical upline, carry more
speed into the maneuver, tighten<BR>>>> your<BR>>>> radii
a little, shorten your line and you should have enough "oomph"
to<BR>>>> carry over the top.<BR>>>><BR>>>>
Again, not to be argumentative, however, a 1.5:1 power to weight
would<BR>>>> give<BR>>>> you unlimited vertical. I
would be extremely surprised if that kind of<BR>>>> power would be
necessary to carry a clean upline of 375 to 400 ft.,<BR>>>>
which<BR>>>> should be considered a very respectable elevation to
make your <BR>>>> transition<BR>>>> to<BR>>>>
level flight.<BR>>>><BR>>>> As for the Quest, a very nice
plane I might add, you might want to try a<BR>>>>
14<BR>>>> x 6, if available. The larger disk while
maintaining the lower pitch,<BR>>>> has<BR>>>> always
helped me increase my vertical abilities. As for not being
able<BR>>>> to<BR>>>> finish 2 sequences on 1 charge,
larger packs are in order.<BR>>>><BR>>>> Ken
Thompson<BR>>>> D6
Newbie<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>> ----- Original
Message ----- <BR>>>> From: "Fred Huber" <<A
title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.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: Sunday, January 07, 2007 8:47 PM<BR>>>> Subject:
Re:<BR>>>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>>
The stall turn you can run out of power at the top and still
complete<BR>>>>> it.<BR>>>>> (you NEED to run out of
power at the top)<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> The vertical up
line you have to make a sustained straight up line at<BR>>>>>
constant speed and then have the "omph" left to make the same raius
<BR>>>>> push<BR>>>>> to<BR>>>>> get
back level as the radius used to pull into the up
line.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> 1:1 power:weight would do the
old Sportsman. You need 1.5:1 to do that<BR>>>>>
up<BR>>>>> line and have the power to wind
compensate.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> A Golberg Tiger 60 with
a .61 2-stroke in the nose could to the old<BR>>>>>
Sportman<BR>>>>> sequence. (with just problems due to wanting to
roll with rudder input)<BR>>>>> With a .91 4-stroke.. (which
gives a significant improvement in<BR>>>>>
up-lines)<BR>>>>> It would be marginal at
best.<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> My Quest 3D e-powered was fine
for the old Sportsman sequence using<BR>>>>>
13X6.5<BR>>>>> at 800 watts. For the new sequence I had to
prop-up to 14X8, drawing<BR>>>>> 900<BR>>>>>
watts. (fortunately the motor, battery and ESC are rated for
that) I<BR>>>>> simply COULD NOT do the up line with the
13X6.5.<BR>>>>> I put the E-powered Quest together specificly to
fly sportsman, aiming<BR>>>>> at<BR>>>>>
2<BR>>>>> rounds per battery charge. I now can't count on
having the power to<BR>>>>> complete the second round. (longer
sequence AND more power required to<BR>>>>>
do<BR>>>>> it.)<BR>>>>><BR>>>>> -----
Original Message ----- <BR>>>>> From: "Ken Thompson" <<A
title=mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net
href="mailto:mrandmrst@comcast.net">mrandmrst@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: Sunday, January 07, 2007 7:03 PM<BR>>>>> Subject:
Re:<BR>>>>>
[NSRCA-discussion]SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>>><BR>>>>><BR>>>>>>
Fred,<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>> Why is that vertical
upline any harder to complete than the old stall<BR>>>>>>
turn?<BR>>>>>> They both end at the same
elevation...<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>
----- Original Message ----- <BR>>>>>> From: "Fred Huber"
<<A title=mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net
href="mailto:fhhuber@clearwire.net">fhhuber@clearwire.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: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:20 AM<BR>>>>>> Subject: Re:
[NSRCA-discussion]<BR>>>>>>
SmallModels...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
I STILL think that the new Sportsman sequence is a mistake.
Vertical<BR>>>>>>> up-line<BR>>>>>>>
requires too much airplane performance and THAT is going to keep
some<BR>>>>>>> potential beginners from
competing.<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>
FHH<BR>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
<BR>>>>>>> From: "Mike Hester" <<A
title=mailto:kerlock@comcast.net
href="mailto:kerlock@comcast.net">kerlock@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: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:06 AM<BR>>>>>>> Subject:
Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Small<BR>>>>>>>
Models...goodforthefutureofthePatternEvent?<BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
That is because people are looking fo a magic fix that I am
utterly,<BR>>>>>>>> totally, absolutely convinced does
not exist.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> I
am also absolutely utterly convinced that messing with the
rules<BR>>>>>>>> too<BR>>>>>>>>
much<BR>>>>>>>> over airframes in ANY class right now
will ultimately have the<BR>>>>>>>>
opposite<BR>>>>>>>> effect of what people are trying to
accomplish.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
You guys know as well as I do that a major part of the draw
in<BR>>>>>>>> pattern<BR>>>>>>>>
is<BR>>>>>>>> the planes themselves to a lot of people.
Not all, but a substantial<BR>>>>>>>>
number.<BR>>>>>>>> In the sportsman class, if a guy has
the ambition to secure a 2 <BR>>>>>>>>
meter<BR>>>>>>>> plane,<BR>>>>>>>>
history shows (around here anyway) that you're MUCH more likely
to<BR>>>>>>>> see<BR>>>>>>>>
him<BR>>>>>>>> next year in intermediate. The guy with
the Kaos.....more likely,<BR>>>>>>>>
not.<BR>>>>>>>> It's<BR>>>>>>>>
not because of cost, that is an excuse. Remove that excuse,
they'll<BR>>>>>>>> just<BR>>>>>>>>
find another. And now you've screwed the guy who WOULD have
been<BR>>>>>>>> around<BR>>>>>>>>
next<BR>>>>>>>>
year....<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> So
let me get this straight....if you want to fly a 2 meter
plane<BR>>>>>>>> with<BR>>>>>>>>
a<BR>>>>>>>> OS<BR>>>>>>>> or
YS160, you would have to fly advanced? Jeez, that's not a
good<BR>>>>>>>>
idea.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>> When I
started, my first contest, I knew I was going to do it.
I<BR>>>>>>>> scratch<BR>>>>>>>>
built a 2 meter plane and went for it. I wasn't the only one,
most<BR>>>>>>>> others<BR>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>> sportsman also had 2 meter planes. One
actually had bought a world<BR>>>>>>>>
team<BR>>>>>>>> member's plane and was flying
it....pretty well I might add...and I<BR>>>>>>>>
have<BR>>>>>>>> to<BR>>>>>>>> say
that even through masters and many years, that season was some
<BR>>>>>>>> of<BR>>>>>>>>
the<BR>>>>>>>> best competition I have ever had. And
we're still here. It produced<BR>>>>>>>>
myself,<BR>>>>>>>> AC Glenn, Bryan Kennedy, Steve
Homenda to name a few. Steve was the<BR>>>>>>>>
only<BR>>>>>>>> one<BR>>>>>>>> who
wasn't flying a 2 meter plane, he was flying a 40 sized
Arresti<BR>>>>>>>> and<BR>>>>>>>>
whipping everyone's tail with it. Oddly enough, he didn't
get<BR>>>>>>>> deterred<BR>>>>>>>>
by<BR>>>>>>>> the big bad evil 2
meters.<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
There is no magic change to the rules that's going to bring
<BR>>>>>>>> newcomers<BR>>>>>>>>
in<BR>>>>>>>> droves. You get creative, do what you
can, and you make the best of<BR>>>>>>>>
what<BR>>>>>>>> you<BR>>>>>>>>
get. We're not driving people away in droves like some people seem
<BR>>>>>>>> to<BR>>>>>>>>
think.<BR>>>>>>>> If we are, it certainly isn't the
rules regarding the size of the<BR>>>>>>>>
planes<BR>>>>>>>> and<BR>>>>>>>>
cost. Maybe, just maybe it has more to do with a lot of
the<BR>>>>>>>>
negativity?<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
That's just my opinion, I could be wrong....but I'm pretty sure
I'm<BR>>>>>>>> not<BR>>>>>>>>
=)<BR>>>>>>>><BR>>>>>>>>
-M<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>>>>>>>>
-- <BR>>>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>>>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>>>>>>>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database:
268.16.7/618 - Release Date:<BR>>>>>>>>
1/6/2007<BR>>>>>>>><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>>>>>>
-- <BR>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming
message.<BR>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>>>>>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database:
268.16.7/618 - Release Date:<BR>>>>>>
1/6/2007<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>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>><BR>>>>
-- <BR>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>>>>
Checked by AVG Free Edition.<BR>>>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus
Database: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date:
1/6/2007<BR>>>><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>>
-- <BR>> No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>> Checked by AVG
Free Edition.<BR>> Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/618 -
Release Date: 1/6/2007<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></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>No virus found in this incoming message.<BR>Checked by AVG Free
Edition.<BR>Version: 7.1.410 / Virus Database: 268.16.7/618 - Release Date:
1/6/2007<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>