<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2769" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>FYI, Dave Michael and I are good friends stemming
from my IMAC days. I would like to add my perspective as IMAC to
Pattern convert. I talk to many from the IMAC ranks about starting in
Pattern and I think Dave makes many good points about their perspective on
things. The perception of Pattern requiring expensive designs
is fairly prevalent in my experience. Alot of it is based in
reality, i.e., you definitely do see some expensive hardware in use, especially
at the Nats level. It's less prevalent locally, but the reputation is
probably still somewhat deserved. It is a fairly recent development
that some solid, competitive designs are available as ARCS / ARFs or relatively
low cost composites. There are the strong proponents of one engine
design/brand or another. I have found that very inexpensive alternatives
to high end 4 strokes exist and they are extremely competitive and well
behaved. Also much cheaper to run. But this type of information does
not seem to be widespread.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>To frame this for the List, Dave is a very
good pilot and builder and very resourceful. Yet, about the time right
after his first Pattern contest experience, he had a zillion questions for me,
the 2 year Pattern veteran (ha!). Questions about airframes, engines,
exhaust etc. Why? Not because it's too hard for a guy like Dave to
figure it out, but because these are well kept secrets! What is
a much less experienced guy going to do? Generally,
they go where the perceived action is, where almost everyone
seems to know something about the hot setup, the best buy in an engine
etc. They flock to "big gas" and then some of them actually end up
flying IMAC competition. A smaller percentage stick with it. An
even smaller percentage get real serious about precision
flying. Whoever they are, they often spend 3X or more of what it
would take to enter Pattern successfully, so it's not money holding many guys
back from trying Pattern. I think it has to do with the perceived
value of whatever they spend $$$ on, the WOW factor, the fact that the
lingering image of Pattern to the masses is still pinned to a 130 mph
lawn dart with retracts zipping from horizon to horizon.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I was fortunate when I got started in Pattern,
because I had a boatload of local, very experienced Pattern competitors
right nearby who I already knew well. So I got great start-up
advice, instantaneous feedback at the field etc. A show of hands
please: Who else had this experience to start with? Some, but
not most I bet. Where can you find even 1/10th the information
about our current equipment as you can for the IMAC stuff?
Magazines? We're fortunate to have Eric and Dean's columns, but it's a
dedicated following that hunts for this type of information. I think
that there is just a different mindset in the majority of IMAC flyers vs.
those dedicated to Pattern. I see it in the aircraft designs, in the
rules, in the sequence designs and in the demeanor of the people involved.
I think Pattern appeals to more of the purist type, yet we are
every bit as fun loving as IMAC types. That's me for example. I
went absolutely bonkers over what I thought were idiotic rules changes in IMAC
about 3 years ago. It took me a while to just figure out that I was just in the
wrong event after 7 years. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Do we need unknowns to make Pattern more
popular? By itself, I don't think it would do much to help.
IMAC is off doing their level best to copy IAC, which includes interesting stuff
like unknowns, but the rules and sequences they fly also take alot of precision
and objectivity out of the flying and judging.
Adding unknowns creates more dependence on luck. Judges
don't know what they are looking at until they've seen it flown a few
times. It's interesting to fly something new, but does it make sense
to heavily influence the outcome this way? Freestyle is something
that on average, less than 20% of contestants will attempt, so that's not the
big draw as far as I can tell. I've seen Freestyle materially
interfere with the conduct of the "pattern" portion of the contest (the real
contest IMO) due to the undue emphasis on it. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I guess what I'm saying is, it's Pattern. It's
about precision. That's the thing that I 'get' from it anyway. It
has similarities to IMAC, yet differs from IMAC in significant ways.
I think those differences form the basis of the key strengths of Pattern,
even if enough newbies aren't able to recognize it in recent history. Each
event will draw it's own type of follower. I think that NSRCA has to learn one
key thing from IMAC. That would be how to market themselves
(us). Ever wonder why everyone calls "it" IMAC? "It" is really the
Scale Aerobatics event. "It" isn't IMAC, IMAC is just the SIG, but
everyone thinks IMAC is what they are flying. Who goes around saying "Hey
Bubba, going to the Propbuster NSRCA contest next weekend?" No one does. Not
that calling it an NSRCA contest is the goal, but the thing is, hardly anyone
even knows this SIG exists unless they are already flying Pattern. Since
the NSRCA SIG and it's members are the probably the main source of information
to entice/educate newcomers, I reckon that's a key problem to be
solved.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I think that the key to growing Pattern
has little to do with emulating events from IMAC. It has mostly to do
with educating people, getting the 'product' out there, making sure people know
what it's about and how to get into it successfully. IMAC is a product
that is marketed successfully, even with the low recurrence of new flyers
returning to compete. They pull newcomers in by the droves
though. From what I can tell, Pattern keeps 'em better though.
Why? It's a more mature event, many of the hardest lessons have been
learned already it and it "makes sense" once you are in it. Most of the
rules in Precision Aerobatics don't make me want to bang my head against the
wall (except that spin definition). You guys have it mostly figured out
already, which makes a purist want to stick with it, but you have NOT figured
out how to get them in the tent in big numbers so that you can find new
purists. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>So please don't re-engineer the event to try to
draw new blood. Instead, focus on dispelling the myths about what is
flown, what the models are like, let it be known that a $700 4C burning $25
worth of fuel in a day isn't required etc. I've got several guys from IMAC
interested in Pattern, because I explain stuff to them, I let them fly my
airplane etc. Between Frank Granelli and I, we've got 2 or 3 newbies in
our own club starting up with a Focus II this coming season. We're going
to teach them about straight lines, what plug to pick etc and hopefully
they will feel good about whatever progress they make. Work with the guys
that don't know what we know and have some enthusiasm about it. Hold Pattern
Primers. Show up and help demonstrate and explain at these Primers.
Pattern in D1 is not dying, it is GROWING. Our district leadership works with
interested clubs and individuals to help to make this
happen. Contests with 2 dozen to over 30 contestants do happen in
this district and they are not anomalies. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Ed</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>