<HTML>
<BODY BGCOLOR="#FFFFFF">
Here,Here, Ed!
<P>Ed Alt wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE> <STYLE></STYLE>
<FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>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></FONT> <FONT FACE="Arial"><FONT SIZE=-1>Ed</FONT></FONT></BLOCKQUOTE>
</BODY>
</HTML>