<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><FONT SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Good stuff Dave. My feelings and experiences are similar<BR>
<BR>
MattK<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">Subj:<B>Re: Artistic Aerobatics suggestions </B><BR>
Date:1/26/2004 2:49:08 PM Eastern Standard Time<BR>
From:<A HREF="mailto:DaveL322@comcast.net">DaveL322@comcast.net</A><BR>
Reply-to:<A HREF="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>
To:<A HREF="mailto:discussion@nsrca.org">discussion@nsrca.org</A><BR>
<I>Sent from the Internet </I><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
E,<BR>
<BR>
I think one of the points of your prior email was that the expense of<BR>
competing in pattern is high......and that if pattern were more exciting, it<BR>
would be more incentive for people to participate.<BR>
<BR>
I agree with much of your post(s) - where I believe you saw disagreement<BR>
with my post was regarding the exciting aspect. I find many forms of<BR>
motorsports racing very exciting (many others find it boring) and would love<BR>
to participate - but the cost is prohibitive - and it always will be (for<BR>
me) no matter how exciting the event is. So with respect to pattern -<BR>
- If the event is viewed as exciting and within budget, we have a new (or<BR>
returning) pattern pilot;<BR>
- If the event is not viewed as exciting - the budget doesn't matter and<BR>
changing the event to be exciting will make it a different event;<BR>
- If the event is viewed as exciting and exceeds the available budget, we<BR>
lose a new (or returning) pattern pilot because of cost and the excitement<BR>
level is moot.<BR>
<BR>
My point(s) - I agree entirely that pattern is expensive, and more expensive<BR>
than it has been in the past. I don't think the excitement level of pattern<BR>
is the big issue (if the event is made to be "exciting", it won't be pattern<BR>
anymore). I think money is a big issue. And I also think time is a big<BR>
issue (60 sized ships were quicker to build, and far less time to maintain).<BR>
As much as I love how well the 2M pattern models fly, I think the cost and<BR>
time needed for the 2M models has reduced the number of potential (and<BR>
former) pattern pilots. I've never seen competition well served by reducing<BR>
the number of competitors - and that is exactly what the escalation of<BR>
engine size has done over the past couple rules cycles - and exactly what<BR>
will continue to happen if larger airframes (>2M) and heavier airframes<BR>
(>5kg) are allowed in the future. Following this trend to an extreme<BR>
example would lead us to pattern planes the size of 40% IMAC models - any<BR>
hardcore IMAC guys care to comment on the cost/time/complexity of a 40% IMAC<BR>
model compared to a 2M pattern model?<BR>
<BR>
Sound - there is absolutely a corollary between sound, displacement, and<BR>
cost. Big engines are louder. Big engines are harder to quiet. Big<BR>
engines are more costly to quiet. Big props for big models make more noise.<BR>
The expense and complexity of pattern power systems (engines, exhaust<BR>
components, props, softmounts, etc) increased substantially with the<BR>
introduction of noise limits. And no matter how many people may have left<BR>
the event because of noise limits, we still have the noise limits to thank<BR>
for the event being viable in many parts of the country. Without a quiet<BR>
pattern plane, I would not be able to fly my pattern plane at 90% of the<BR>
fields I currently use. After several years of pretty nasting fighting<BR>
within the group (not unlike pattern in the late 80's), the IMAC contingent<BR>
is now also moving towards quieter planes (as did pattern in the early<BR>
90's).<BR>
<BR>
In my mind, one of the biggest areas upon which to get new pattern fliers is<BR>
from modelers new to the RC hobby. Many of these new modelers do not<BR>
subscribe to magazines, are not members of AMA, don't belong to local clubs,<BR>
and have never run or thought of using a glow or gas powered engine. These<BR>
new modelers are the electric park flyers - some of whom do appreciate<BR>
regimented flying and competition - trick is/will be exposing them to<BR>
pattern. Electrics in pattern is a whole new topic that is rapidly<BR>
changing - for the purposes of this email thread, suffice to say similar<BR>
comparisons to 2M sized electrics vs 1.5M electrics can be made in an<BR>
analogous manner as 2M glow vs 60 sized glow. Bigger is more expensive,<BR>
more time consuming, and louder. I'm not yet familiar enough with electrics<BR>
to be savvy about how to keep electric costs down - but, it a displacement<BR>
rule were to return to pattern, I think limiting the watts of an electric<BR>
would be analogous.<BR>
<BR>
Just my experiences.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Dave Lockkhart<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>