Pattern Box Rules (discussion)

[dwaynenancy]

If you wanted someone to fly close in all you had to do was find Ted White.  Do you remember when he and Ron Chidgey were flying at the same time and Ted flew his pattern centered on the runway (I've been told since I wasn't there) and there was a MASS rumbling for Ted being so unkind.  Dwayne
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dean Pappas 
  To: discussion at nsrca.org 
  Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:52 AM
  Subject: RE: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)


  Hi Jim,
  I'm really not looking to argue with you, but that's not where we used to fly, back pre-Turnaround.
  Oh yeah, some of us flew close in, and there were regional variations (you couldn't score for beans on Long Island twenty five years ago if you didn't do your rolls over the runway at less than 50 feet) but by and large we flew right at 150 meters and maybe farther for some tall stuff. Most flew bottoms well over 100', and tops on some stuff often violated the 45 degree maneuver box a bit. Look at it another way, we were not flying smaller, with our 120 MPH planes, and the square loop with 1/2 rolls was supposed to stay under 45 degrees. They were flown far out.

  Now a statement like that, I need to prove. The last non turnaround Team Trials was held in '83 at Rough River Falls Ky. There is a road parallel to the runway and it was measured at about 175 meters away. We were asked, midway through the contest, to stop flying over and past the road. There were businesses and houses there.

  Early after Turnaround, the same was true, on the same site. Nowadays, there is still a contest there. OK ... who has attended that contest the last couple of years? Do they still have a constant problem with road overflight?

  Turnaround really has reduced our noise footprint.

  later,
  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 J.Oddino
    Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 11:57 AM
    To: discussion at nsrca.org
    Subject: Re: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)


    I think Gray has broken the code but doesn't know it.  The reason people fly too far out is so they can stay in the box.  In the old days we'd fly the maneuvers where the judges could see them.  We probably never flew more than 100 meters out or over 150 meters high.  There was a 60 degree "box" (really a triangle) but all maneuvers were center maneuvers and easy to judge as far as positioning.  Turnaround required that the maneuvers be moved out.  It was supposed to reduce the noise footprint but did the opposite. 
    The box should be a box and the horizontal distance at 75 degrees ought to be the same as it is at 60.  I haven't gone through the numbers but I'll bet it is easier for all to see the plane at the edges of a rectangular box if it is flown in closer. The objective ought to be to keep the footprint small and to make it easier for the judges and pilots to see the airplane.  That's my take.
    JimO

      ----- Original Message ----- 
      From: Gray E Fowler 
      To: discussion at nsrca.org 
      Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 6:44 AM
      Subject: RE: Pattern Box Rules (discussion)



      My vote would be to up the penalty for flying too far out.  Hard to tell if it is 150 or 175, but 200 meters to me is a ZERO...outta the box. But I can only give a serious 2pt downgrade. It bothers me when people fly 200-225 meters out with a downgrade. Problem here of course is the FAI's are about the worse offenders -i.e. can't do a rolling circle within 175 meters-fly it right or get rid of it. Considering that us low class types follow their lead (butt sniffin' in reality) no wonder I see 250 meter patterns. 
      The box dimensions are just fine. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20050303/61705155/attachment-0001.html