[NSRCA-dist8] Classic Pattern

Thu Feb 20 05:00:13 AKST 2014

"as they flip and flap through 32 segments" is that a technical term?

On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 9:56 PM, Patrick Harris <harris7148 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Cool....OK boys and girls I just hammered the gavel down....it's a done
> deal........for now.....until it's not.....or it rains and it's a leap year
> then we do something different. [?]
>
> Thanks guys for all your help and input.
>
> Now let's go fly.....I'm going to go iron on some Ultracoat.
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:
>
>> oh, yeah.... AMEN!
>>
>> On Feb 19, 2014, at 8:48 PM, Patrick Harris <harris7148 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Gordon,
>>
>> That's great info.
>>
>> Long story short, my original criteria pretty much holds to what they are
>> doing.
>>
>> No year restrictions
>>
>> 60 class planes or smaller
>>
>> 6 cell maximum for electrics
>>
>> Gary recommended adding Pipes and Retracts allowed.
>>
>> Can I get an AMEN
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Gordon Anderson <gaa at owt.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Here is some input from Tony in D7 that may help:
>>>
>>> Hi Gordon,
>>>
>>> Mike forwarded to me your questions about Classic.
>>>
>>> In this region, we feel Classic is more about the old-style patterns
>>> then about technicalities regarding models. We have allowed pretty much
>>> anything, but would definitely frown on a 2-meter pattern model entering.
>>> But we have had 62" Osiris', Sequences, Elements, and the like enter.
>>> Models like the Venus or Venus II have flown. In the Pre-Novice and Novice
>>> it is much more about getting guys to do it. So we have allowed almost
>>> anything in those classes. In advanced there have been mostly "Classic"
>>> models. And in Masters all have been Classic.
>>>
>>> As to the exact definition of a "Classic" model, we have stayed away
>>> from doing much there. Same with engine/power systems. Since companies like
>>> O.S. don't even make a .61 anymore, we haven't made that distinction. As I
>>> said, much more about the flying then the models.
>>>
>>> I hope this helps! If you have any more questions feel free!
>>>
>>> Tony Frackowiak
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 19, 2014, at 5:37 PM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Yes!
>>>
>>> Eliminating the year eliminates the need for certification or
>>> differences of opinion.
>>>
>>> I think there were several 120 designs such as the 2 plus 2 which were
>>> approximately a 2M airplane flying prior to TA. Maybe a NATS equipment list
>>> exists from about 1989. If I get bored tonight maybe I'll look fore one.
>>>
>>> I don't know that I'd encourage the Option-120 although it certainly
>>> could have existed in the 80's, it didn't. However the 60 size Option-3, a
>>> simple fixed gear design did and it flew well with a muffler or piped 60 /
>>> 61 or 91 four stroke.
>>>
>>> Jim
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* nsrca-dist8-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [
>>> mailto:nsrca-dist8-bounces at lists.nsrca.org<nsrca-dist8-bounces at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> ]*On Behalf Of *Patrick Harris
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:08 PM
>>> *To:* AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY
>>> *Cc:* Gary McClellan; Ray Gauthier; Arthur F. Kelly; Rudy; Rick Bergeron
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-dist8] Classic Pattern
>>>
>>> Jim,
>>>
>>> That's pretty much in line with what Ray had to say, which is to limit
>>> it to "aircraft designed to fly pattern that were originally intended for
>>> glow engines. These same period aircraft can be currently powered by
>>> electric motors.
>>>
>>> Is this in line with your thinking?
>>>
>>> This eliminates the "year" issue.
>>>
>>> Gary did bring up an issue with 120 sized planes like the Option 120.
>>> Although not truly classic, these type of planes were indeed used in pre
>>> turnaround were they not?
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 4:59 PM, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Pat I gave that some thought last night.
>>>
>>> Traditional classic / ballistic aircraft were GLOW POWER designs. There
>>> may be an electric power exception but very rare and specific.
>>> We were to restrict it to these period glow power designs ore electric
>>> conversions.
>>> Just a thought!
>>> Jim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> *From:* nsrca-dist8-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:
>>> nsrca-dist8-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]*On Behalf Of *Patrick Harris
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 3:41 PM
>>> *To:* Gail & Robert Walker
>>> *Cc:* Gary McClellan; AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY; Ray Gauthier; Arthur F.
>>> Kelly; Rudy; Rick Bergeron
>>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-dist8] Classic Pattern
>>>
>>> Bob,
>>>
>>> Under the laid out guide line, I would say Yes it would be OK, but the
>>> intent is to keep it to Old School. To me a 3D ARF of modern design does
>>> not fit the "Old School" criteria. This stuff isn't in stone so we can
>>> still adjust as we go. Any thoughts from everyone on how to write this is
>>> most appreciated. Like Jim, said we don't want to alienate anyone, but we
>>> do need some sort of guideline.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 2:09 PM, Gail & Robert Walker <
>>> grbwii at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>  Pat,
>>>   Just checking, but would that mean that I could use my electric
>>> Katanna(SP)? You say it fly at Dusters the other day. I would have to tone
>>> the throws down a bit, but it seems to fit your specs?
>>>               Bob W
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> *From:* Patrick Harris <harris7148 at gmail.com>
>>> *To:* Ray Gauthier <rc.gauthier at comcast.net>
>>> *Cc:* AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY <nsrca-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org> ; Brad Burden<bburden1959 at gmail.com>
>>>  ; Bob Walker <grbwii at comcast.net> ; Rudy <whyRudy at comcast.net> ; Rick
>>> Bergeron <ribergeron at comcast.net> ; alan wellentin<a_wellentin at yahoo.com>
>>>  ;Arthur F. Kelly <afkelly25 at gmail.com> ; Bill Carder <BC3662 at aol.com> ;
>>>  Gary McClellan <gary at raystowing.com>
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:21 PM
>>> *Subject:* Re: Classic Pattern
>>>
>>> Very cool
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 12:19 PM, Raymond C. Gauthier <
>>> rc.gauthier at comcast.net> wrote:
>>>  A pic of the Dalotel is attached.  Pretty cool eh?
>>> __________________________________________
>>>
>>> I'm hoping I have something old hanging in the garage that would fill
>>> the bill.  I know I have a scale French aerobatic airplane, a Dalotel,
>>> which is the right size and pretty much in flyable (wet power) condition.
>>> When I'm back in town I'll have to dig it out and see how it flies the
>>> Novice pattern.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Patrick Harris [mailto:harris7148 at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 12:53 PM
>>> *To:* Ray Gauthier
>>> *Cc:* AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY; Brad Burden; Bob Walker; Rudy; Rick
>>> Bergeron; alan wellentin; Arthur F. Kelly; Bill Carder; Gary McClellan
>>> *Subject:* Re: Classic Pattern
>>>
>>> Ray,
>>>
>>> Yes. By saying 60 size that pretty much limits you to pre 80's planes.
>>> Are we going to turn away a guy that walks up with a little Osiris? The way
>>> it's written, no we wouldn't turn him away, but I think this is going to be
>>> a non issue or infrequent if at all. . We need to keep this real simple and
>>> have fun.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 10:53 AM, Raymond C. Gauthier <
>>> rc.gauthier at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> Does no year restrictions mean any airplane that fits the size and power
>>> guidelines?
>>>
>>> *From:* Patrick Harris [mailto:harris7148 at gmail.com]
>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 19, 2014 11:47 AM
>>> *To:* AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, WY; Brad Burden; Bob Walker; Ray Gauthier;
>>> Rudy; Rick Bergeron; alan wellentin; Arthur F. Kelly; Bill Carder; Gary
>>> McClellan
>>> *Subject:* Classic Pattern
>>>
>>> Just a quick update. I have had a few question from a couple of CD's in
>>> regards to Classic pattern this year. The bottom line is we do this is to
>>> have fun and we don't want to load this up with a bunch of rules.
>>>
>>> Long story short, here are the only criteria. Keep in mind we will
>>> likely tweak this as we go:
>>>
>>> No year restrictions
>>>
>>> 60 class planes or smaller
>>>
>>> 6 cell maximum for electrics
>>>
>>> That's it. We will fly two schedules this year which are Novice and
>>> Advanced which can be found here;
>>>
>>> http://www.classicpatternassociation.com/uploads/CPA_call_card.pdf
>>>
>>> At some of our contest we will fly classic Saturday and Sunday in the
>>> mornings due to sun issues (Woodburn, Redmond). At fields like Molalla that
>>> we can fly turnaround by 8:00, we will fly classic on Saturday after
>>> turnaround and it's the discretion of the CD to fly classic on Sunday. My
>>> guess is for those fields we will fly classic on Saturday only to get guys
>>> on the road Sunday.
>>>
>>> Also, Gordon has been at it again with a great new feature on the D8
>>> site. No longer will you have to search in vane for upcoming events to
>>> preregister on the NSRCA calendar. All you will need to do is click on the
>>> 2014 schedule on the D8 site and you will find an info link and a link to
>>> the calendar for preregistration. By the way, it is a great help to the
>>> CD"s and Gordon to preregister to all contest you plan to attend. Again, my
>>> thanks to Gordon. Without him, we wouldn't be where we are.
>>>
>>> If you have questions or concerns, email or give me a call.
>>>
>>> 503-454-0381
>>>
>>> Pat
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------
>>>  <http://www.avast.com/>
>>>
>>> This email is free from viruses and malware becauseavast! Antivirus<http://www.avast.com/>
>>>  protection is active.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
>>> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
>>> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
>>> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
>> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
>> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-dist8 mailing list
> NSRCA-dist8 at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-dist8
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist8/attachments/20140220/9ee2cd3c/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 360.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 453 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-dist8/attachments/20140220/9ee2cd3c/attachment-0001.gif>