Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[Rcmaster199 at aol.com]

I forgot a biggie in the **Complaint Du Jur*** list: How about abolishing  
Turnaround? This way we can eliminate a stage altogether and worry only  about 
centering.
 
AMA pattern here we come, ready or not. Forget about noise, it wouldn't be  
an issue with the present powerplants. Noise footprint is much smaller than it  
was back in the days of the Banshee-like piped 60's turning toothpicks, even 
if  the stage was a mile wide. 
 
MattK 
 
In a message dated 3/3/2005 10:32:28 AM Eastern Standard Time,  
d.pappas at kodeos.com writes:

John,
That's because the urge to rush when under pressure is primordial:  think 
about how we all rushed the first time we had to read an essay in front  of the 
class.
Dean
 
Dean Pappas 
Sr. Design Engineer 
Kodeos Communications 
111 Corporate Blvd. 
South Plainfield, N.J. 07080 
(908) 222-7817 phone 
(908) 222-2392 fax 
d.pappas at kodeos.com  
-----Original Message-----
From:  discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On  
Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:40  AM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Pattern Box  Rules (discussion)


Right on. I think Tom Hanks said: "The 'hard' is  what makes it good". For 
the record, at my first contest / pattern primer  last year, I was actually told 
to "stretch out" my maneuvers. "The box is  way bigger than that" I was told. 
Wow, that made life easier. I did a lot  better in my second contest, even 
while flying 70's style (ballistic)  without a megabuck 2-meter airplane. I got 
everything done "in the box"  without it being rushed like at the first 
contest (you guys should have seen  the Immelman / roll / split "S" sequence - it 
looked like 2 rolls stretched  out slightly). If I can do it, anyone can. It 
only took 4 gallons of fuel to  fix the problem I had with "the box"... 
 
John Pavlick
_http://www.idseng.com_ (http://www.idseng.com/)  


-----Original Message-----
From:  discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]On  
Behalf Of rick wallace
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 11:06  PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: RE: Pattern Box  Rules (discussion)





Matt –   
Ya nailed this  one! Great!  
Let’s go burn  fuel and quit inventing things to try and fix!  
If it was easy,  it wouldn’t be fun!  
Rick   
-----Original  Message-----
From:  discussion-request at nsrca.org [mailto:discussion-request at nsrca.org]  On 
Behalf Of  Rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:43  PM
To:  discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules  (discussion) 
 
In  Pattern:
 
There's nothing  wrong with the +/-60 degree stage rule and the 150 meter out 
distance is  fine also. 
 
There's nothing  wrong with the 5 kilo max rule. 
 
There is nothing  wrong with the 2x2 meter max rule
 
There's nothing  wrong with the unlimited engine power rule
 

 
What's the next  complaint du jur that ""needs fixing"""? The 42 volt nominal 
voltage when  an electric is involved? Or possibly argue that real radio 
programmability  with rate functions is desirable? Or autopilots and gyros? Or 
maybe  putting an upper limit on prop size because a X" prop on an engine is  
dangerous? 
 

 
Interestingly,  one could argue that pattern has some similarity to golf in 
that it's an  individual's sport. Many may play golf but a small  percentage is 
good at it and extremely few are pros. C'mon  fellas, pattern should be 
challenging to do well. Actually, more  accurately, pattern is just plain tough to 
do, period. I find that fun.  Don't you?
 

 
MattK




 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050303/ccbea3a6/attachment-0001.html