<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Mark,<br>
On point one I certainly agree with you. Jeff Carder's Lightning is
a case in point. It does take skill and attention to detail and a
lot of time to produce one of Jeff's masterpieces.<br>
<br>
On point two, I'd like to take it a bit further. First of all, there
are plenty of airframes that will take a contra or other somewhat
heavy innovative device without breaking the weight barrier of 5000
grams using calibrated equipment. The contra system weighs 800 grams
with CF props and a Neu, according to Brenner. A Hacker Q80, with a
plastic spinner and an APC prop is about 840. My Wind S is about
3700 grams with the Q80 combination and I am confident I could build
one with a contra and make weight without much difficulty. There are
plenty of other airframes that would accomplish the same goal and
even more easily make weight.<br>
Again the problem occurs for those with limited resources. If you
have an airframe that is just making weight with light
accessories(read expensive) such as gear, spinners, props and wing
tubes, you will have trouble making weight if you convert to a
contra and will need to go to a lighter airframe. This is similar to
the Adv/Int pilot who wants to convert a well-used Integral to
electric using cheaper components. He will not make weight and is
very unlikely to meet the 115 allowance either.<br>
This seems to put us in an area where we can all make weight but
some will not be able to afford it and other will resent having to
spend the bucks. It is very easy to convert many dollars into
missing grams but why? Those at the top of the class will find a way
to get the light stuff to campaign at a weight well under the
weight limit while the rest of us pay dearly or ignore the weight
rule and stay away from the Nats.<br>
The perceived requirement has always been a problem. I believe we
already have a perceived requirement problem as it relates to two
meter airplanes. The beginning classes appear to have the idea that
it takes two meters to compete. They are just looking for a magic
bullet to bypass the endless practice sessions. They would be so
much better off with an Osiris' or a Wind 110 or a used Focus and
just fly until the wings fall off. <br>
The Contra may be on its way to that perception as well, weight
increase or no increase. This kind of stuff has more to do with
looking for shortcuts and is pervasive within our society these
days. Clearly there may come a day when your equipment is holding
you back but for most of us it is over the horizon.<br>
<br>
I can only repeat what I said before about the weight proposal of
the NSRCA. There will be no sea change if we increase the weight
limit. FAI rules the roost there. If we can help those at the bottom
of the classes without wreaking havoc at the top, we should do it.
I'm sorry but I just don't see a weight increase, at the AMA level,
having any effect except to make more flyers legal with less expense
and less effort.<br>
<br>
Thanks for listening<br>
John<br>
<br>
On 3/15/2012 10:25 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:C1335DF0-832C-48B7-BBCC-7B871A871342@paragon-inc.com"
type="cite">Hey John,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Two quick points. A) don't disagree at all that we're in a
Buy rather than Build market. My point was simply to counter
Jim's statement that "only those with access to expensive
tooling and equipment to produce composite models can build an
electric powered airplane to meet the weight requirements"
That part just wasn't true.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Point 2 is to consider something as simple at the Contra
Engine set up. Not a aircraft design change, but something that
requires a good deal of effort to get in under weight today.
Up-ing the weight limit could make something like that (or some
other major change) a perceived requirement (I say perceived in
the same way the flying a 40% aircraft is perceived to be
required to be competitive in IMAC) and that CLEARLY ups the
cost to compete by a LOT. That's just one known example (that
may or may not catch on regardless of weight). But the issue
is simply that if you give the top competitors in Masters room
to work with that they don't have now, they'll figure out a way
to take advantage of it. They have either the skill or the
means to make weight today. They are the ones that will..and
are...pushing the envelope. Not the guy in Advanced that is
trying to fly with a used aircraft and wants to use inexpensive
heavy batteries. Thus the additional weight tolerance that was
approved last year.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>-Mark</div>
<div>
<div>
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse:
separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight:
normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal;
orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width:
0px; font-size: medium; ">
<div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">Mark Atwood</span></b><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">Paragon Consulting, Inc.</span></b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> </span><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">|</span></b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> President</span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">5885 Landerbrook Drive
Suite 130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124</span><span
style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> </span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 </span><b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">|</span></b><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> Fax: 440.684.3102</span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in; font-size:
12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; "><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: rgb(19, 81, 243); "><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
style="color: blue; text-decoration: underline; ">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a> </span><b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">|</span></b><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> </span><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: rgb(19, 81, 243); "><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/" style="color:
blue; text-decoration: underline; ">www.paragon-inc.com</a></span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 15, 2012, at 1:07 AM, John Gayer wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Mark,<br>
<br>
I agree that the BEST way to have a light airplane is build
your own but it not the easiest. Those of us who competed
back in the dark ages know how to build and finish a balsa
builtup or balsa/foam wing and work with a raw fiberglass
fuse. <br>
<br>
We now have a lot of participants who not only do not have a
clue about building a wing or finishing a raw epoxyglass
fuse, they are even reluctant to assemble one of the current
breed of ARFs. If they tear out the gear, they need help
getting back in the air. Options are more limited for these
folks and they do not all have unlimited resources. They are
part of our pattern community and are some of our more avid
pattern competitors. They have a lot of respect for those
who can build but they are not willing to put in the hours
through the years we spent acquiring those skills.<br>
<br>
While there are many, myself included, who could build
pattern planes today we choose instead to buy. This is
often a time vs money decision where my time is more
valuable to me than the dollars I send to the Chinese. For
others, it is not a choice- buying is a necessity. If you
don't know how to build light and straight, you certainly do
not know how to repair light either. It is this part of our
pattern community that I would like to help with an increase
in the AMA only weight limit. If you like, it is those just
starting out and those that are financially challenged that
need help with a weight allowance, not you and me. And those
are the flyers we need to help if we are to have any chance
to make pattern grow.<br>
<br>
It seems very clear that the world-wide pattern airframe
industry is driven by the FAI weight and size limit. That we
here in the US increase our weight limit, as other countries
have, will not impact the designs and airframes commonly
available at a reasonable cost. Who is going to design a
heavy airframe and expect to sell it? 50cc biplanes? go
ahead and build your labor of love that has no market. If I
practice every hour you spend designing, building, modifying
and testing such a beast, I will be way ahead. There is no
magic bullet in any airframe much less a heavy one
regardless of power plant. There are many planes that will
execute a wonderful pattern if straight, light and properly
trimmed. That is a fact of life and not a rule.<br>
<br>
Being able to have the freedom to raise our weight limit is
only made possible by the FAI specifications of a pattern
model. If the FAI, in its infinite wisdom, were to raise
either the size or the weight I will be right there helping
to fight it as that change would bring on all the airframe
change and added expense that many are concerned about.<br>
As a point of interest, the Intermediate and Advanced class
attendance at the 2011 Nats increased by about 50%. Was this
caused by the 115 gram allowance for those classes? I don't
know but I very much doubt it hurt. for comparison, Masters
was up 34% and F3A 21%.<br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
John(another grumpy old man)<br>
maybe because we don't build enough anymore?<br>
or still have ambroid and dope withdrawals?<br>
<br>
On 3/14/2012 6:35 AM, Mark Atwood wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:60C69525-C3A1-42E1-8125-CB0C1771C68F@paragon-inc.com"
type="cite">Hey Jim,
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Not to be confrontational but some of that is simply
not true. The EASIEST way to make weight right now is
building your own with traditional materials and
techniques. A simple built up balsa wing will save more
than half a POUND (10oz) over a composite wing. A
balsa/foam wing is slightly heavier but still saves a
full 8oz. We've been building fiberglass Fuses since
well before I started in this in the late 80's and the
only change to the fuselages is layering some carbon in
to stiffen the nose and gear area. Nothing magical
there.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The issue is somewhat the opposite of what you
present. People don't WANT to build, they want to BUY.
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>But even that is no longer a real issue. Are there
some heavy planes? Sure. But a lot of the current
planes on the market today make weight without issue for
electric and anything glow seems to not be part of the
discussion even though those aircraft are perfectly
viable. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Bottom line is that weight is a constraining factor.
BY DESIGN. Without the constraint, designs and
equipment WILL change, and that change will cost money
and that will eventually be passed on to everyone. <br>
<div> <span class="Apple-style-span"
style="border-collapse: separate; font-family:
Helvetica; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows:
2; word-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px;
-webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none;
-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; ">
<div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; "><b><span style="font-size: 10pt;
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color:
black; ">Mark Atwood</span></b><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; "><b><span style="font-size: 9pt;
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color:
black; ">Paragon Consulting, Inc.</span></b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> </span><b><span
style="font-size: 10pt; font-family:
Verdana, sans-serif; color: black; ">|</span></b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> President</span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; "><span style="font-size: 8.5pt;
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color:
black; ">5885 Landerbrook Drive Suite
130, Cleveland Ohio, 44124</span><span
style="font-size: 10.5pt; font-family:
Verdana, sans-serif; color: black; "> </span><span
style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri,
sans-serif; color: rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; "><span style="font-size: 8.5pt;
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color:
black; ">Phone: 440.684.3101 x102 </span><b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">|</span></b><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> Fax:
440.684.3102</span><span style="font-size:
11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color:
rgb(31, 73, 125); "><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div style="margin-top: 0in; margin-right: 0in;
margin-bottom: 0.0001pt; margin-left: 0in;
font-size: 12pt; font-family: 'Times New Roman',
serif; "><span style="font-size: 8.5pt;
font-family: Verdana, sans-serif; color:
rgb(19, 81, 243); "><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">mark.atwood@paragon-inc.com</a> </span><b><span
style="font-size: 9pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; ">|</span></b><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: black; "> </span><span
style="font-size: 8.5pt; font-family: Verdana,
sans-serif; color: rgb(19, 81, 243); "><a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.paragon-inc.com/"
style="color: blue; text-decoration:
underline; ">www.paragon-inc.com</a></span></div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</span><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
</div>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 14, 2012, at 1:42 AM, James Oddino wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode:
space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I
have not read all the comments regarding weight
increase proposals but Michael Harrison articulated
the best reason to increase the weight limit in some
private emails we shared not long ago. Excuse me if
this has been covered in this thread. In the old
days all the top pilots designed and built their own
airplanes. Now only those with access to expensive
tooling and equipment to produce composite models
can build an electric powered airplane to meet the
weight requirements. The current, arbitrary limit
stifles development. Throw out the weight limit.
What purpose does it serve?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Also I seem to remember that in the late 60s
and early 70s the FAI requirement was specified in
terms of wing loading (Kg/Dm) and the area
included the wing and the stab. And I believe the
requirement was a minimum meaning that heavier was
okay. RVP, is Ron Chidgey still around? He could
probably tell us the straight scoop. I'm too old
to remember the details.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Jim </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 13, 2012, at 9:13 PM, John Gayer
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"> Peter,<br>
On behalf of the rules committee I would
like to thank you for your many
well-reasoned, thoughtful and
thought-provoking posts. The one below goes
far beyond the current rules cycle and
addresses areas that are key to the future
of pattern and the NSRCA. I would like to
hear more ideas about the direction we
should take, both from you and from others
on this list. <br>
John Gayer<br>
NSRCA Treasurer<br>
Rules Committee member<br>
<br>
<br>
On 3/13/2012 1:42 PM, Peter Vogel wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGBB6kLirDrtnQ9z5jSdgr5utEfzzRz9z=8F5B4s_mFrPybq2A@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Taking a lesson from our
former CEO (Steve Bennett, protege of Jack
Welch) -- whenever there's a heated
argument about a proposal, it is very
rarely the proposal itself that is the
source of the argument, rather, what
people are disagreeing about is WHAT they
are solving for (the "big Y") and the
dozen or so variables their perspective
believes influence the Y (the little X's)
-- if you can agree on the big Y before
you even start talking about the little
X's you think will move the lever and then
share your knowledge that leads to the
things you think will move the needle and
everyone else does the same, then there is
rarely argument and you will reach a
shared understanding of the tactics and
strategy that will move you forward.
And, of course, all the Big Y's are in
pursuit of "True North" which is what the
organization as a whole exists to achieve
(in the case of a company, it can be as
simple as "maximum return for
shareholders" in the case of the company I
work for it's Best-in-class results for
all three stakeholders (shareholders,
customers, employees).
<div> <br>
</div>
<div>So, let's start with the NSRCA
itself, why do we exist, and what are we
solving for? I think I heard someone
say "to support US participation in
international competition" -- I'll go
with that one for a moment...</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Last I checked, FAI-level performance
doesn't reside latent in the fetus
waiting to be activated when a child
first touches the sticks on a
transmitter and delivers a phenom-level
performance. It might happen, but I
believe even Andrew Jesky spent over a
decade in pursuit of the goal of winning
the precision competition at Tucson and
similarly in pursuit of a slot on the US
world F3A team... In short, talent is
developed -- that means brought up
through progressive levels of
competition where a decent showing is
possible for the person's current skill
level, or at least that they feel they
are making progress toward a successful
showing. If taking home wood isn't a
least a back-of-the-mind goal in the
lower levels, that's a rare circumstance
(I admit, for me the starting goal was
to not get all zeroes and to improve my
overall flying -- but I've been bitten
by the competitive bug and now I *want*
to do well, though I recognize I'm still
probably years away from being near the
top of the podium in sportsman given
limitations on the amount of practice I
can fit into my life). </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, proposed Big Y number 1 --
Promote and Support classes that allow
talent to be identified and developed to
ultimately lead to success in FAI. --
Probably needs some word smithing, but I
think it adequately explains why 401,
etc. exist. In any well-formed
development program, you want to see a
strong funnel of "newbies" coming in to
the bottom classes while people "leak"
in the boundaries between classes for
various reasons (hitting a talent
plateau, discovering the opposite sex,
lack of funds, other commitments more
important, lack/loss of practice
facilities, etc.) Some leakage is
organic and unavoidable, other leakage
is manageable, some is reversable (i.e.
many people come back to the hobby after
the, to quote Inga from <i>Young
Frankenstein</i>, "Sweet Mystery of
Life", is no longer shiny and new, still
fun, but not the only thing to live
for). Controlling the controllable
leakage would be one of the X's to solve
for here, as would the "development" of
talent (read: training and coaching that
goes beyond the high-wing trainer) and,
arguably most importantly, bringing new
blood into the lower classes.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think a lot of the weight argument
relates to a lack of clarity about what
we were solving for with that proposal:</div>
<div> Some think it relates to making
the lower classes more accessible -- I'm
willing to buy that, to a point, in that
getting a 2m bird to make weight can be
challenging and expensive, creating a
barrier to entry into the lower classes.
(as you progress through the classes,
the possibility of sponsorships, etc.
increase, making cost less of a concern
-- I'll talk about sponsorship later...)
But the argument can be made that at
the lower classes you are actually
probably a lot less willing to put an
expensive 2m 11lb (or 11+lb) plane at
risk and so you'll "fly what you brung"
which is probably a smaller plane (47"
Osiris, 48" Vanquish, 62" Osiris,
Wind50, hand-me-down Kaos, etc.) where
making weight isn't even a vague
concern.</div>
<div> Some think it relates to aligning
ourselves with the international
community -- I believe that was even one
of the reasons for the change documented
in the proposal, someone did the
research and found that a number of
other countries' development classes
allow for 5500 grams (which is only a
10% variance from the FAI standard) and,
I believe, there was/is some evidence
for higher development class
participation in those countries than in
the US. We all know correlation is not
causation, so whether the increased
weight limit is the reason for the
higher participation or whether there
are other environmental factors (i.e.
BMFA's 'B' and 'C' certificate training
programs that take people beyond flying
a circuit with a high wing trainer) is
obviously debatable.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>When I voted yes on the weight issue
I did so in full knowledge that we
already have a 115g allowance in
Intermediate and Advanced as well as a
"fly what you brung" convention in
sportsman. My thinking was that in
today's global community, people move
from country to country a lot (as
director of training at my local field I
recently signed off two recent european
transplants to fly solo at our field, my
brother and his family have lived in
Indonesia and the UK for most of my
nephew's lives, having only just now
returned to the states after 16 years as
expats) and so we make it easier for
people who may have competed at their
equivalent of Intermediate and Advanced
or Masters to compete in US competitions
with the planes they moved with them. I
saw no likely harm in the change because
there's plenty of incentive to "keep it
light" to improve the flying
characteristics (except in the windiest
conditions), the other restrictions
regarding size, voltage, and sound
create further barriers to significant
weight increase if you want to be
competitive. So for people who, like
me, read the rules carefully before
getting into competition (My AMA# was on
the right wing at my first competition,
no one had to tell me I needed it) the
weight will be one less barrier to
considering competition. I also
thought it would encourage a degree of
"casual" competitors for whom pattern is
not the end-all-be-all of their
participation in RC but they have a
self-designed bird that competes well
but isn't a classic pattern ship.
"casual" competition at the local level
is, I believe, part of what it takes to
create the "critical mass" that makes a
competition viable for the club to host,
and for participants to feel that the
sport isn't dying off (similar to church
attendance, there's a certain level
above which growth is easier because
people believe in the viability of the
church). In short, I saw several
positives and no negatives to the
change, so I voted yes. Does it mean
I'm going to go out and campaign a 5500g
plane? No, it's not going to change
what I do -- my Vanquish makes weight
easily and will continue to do so even
if I have to repair the LG 3 more times
and I expect the 2M Osiris will be
similar when I get it later this summer.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I promised I'd talk about sponsorship
-- this is peripheral to the weight
issue, but something the NSRCA should
think about if development of talent
within pattern is truly something we
believe we should be solving for -- I
know there are some sponsored pilots
here in D7, but it is my impression that
they are sponsored because they rose in
the ranks at a time when 3D didn't exist
and so pattern carried the "WOW" and was
one of the premier competition classes
in the US. I don't think I've ever
seen, at least here in D7, a
manufacturer rep (as opposed to
sponsored pilot) at a pattern event,
that says to me that pattern at the
local level, at least, isn't a "feeder"
for manufacturers to find local pilots
to represent their brand well at their
club field or local competitions.
Contrast that with any local huckfest
or strongly attended fun fly (which is
mostly 3D stuff and foam wing combat
these days) and you'll see at least one
other reason that I think we don't draw
the new blood that pattern probably once
did. I "grew up" watching the pattern
guys and their tuned pipes and fast
birds (mostly in magazines since I lived
in backwater Los Alamos, NM until I was
in college in TX) and they were almost
gods to me with their JR and Futaba
shirts. Where's the sponsor talent
(which includes piloting, but also
helping others with their setups,
coaching, etc. talent) identification in
pattern these days? If pattern were
*visibly* supported by the manufacturers
more, I think we'd also see an influx to
our branch of the hobby.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>'Nuff said.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
NSRCA-discussion mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>