[NSRCA-discussion] For Sale

[Ron Van Putte]

Long ago, right after dirt was invented, we used to fly by  
frequency.  This was back before the 50 channels we have now.  There  
were seven 72 MHz frequencies, as I remember (if I'm wrong, someone  
will jump in and correct me).  Contests were flown with, for example,  
all the pilots on 72.080 MHz flying in a row, regardless of what  
class they flew.  It was awkward for the judges, because they would  
see pilots in different classes flying in front of them helter  
skelter.   We started flying by class in the southeast long before  
the Nats were done this way.  In fact, it was our success with  
running classes this way that lead to the Nats adopting it.  You just  
need good frequency control.  Later, we decided to allocate certain  
frequencies to each class and frequency control became easier.

Ron Van Putte

On Jun 7, 2007, at 11:42 AM, J N Hiller wrote:

> Hi Ron. We’ve never met but I remember reading your column for many  
> years. Thank you!
>
> I was flying pattern here in the Northwest in the early 90’s and  
> don’t recall having problems. Flight order on multiple flight lines  
> was arranged to position or separate conflicting frequencies which  
> was inconvenient at times, especially when mulligans disrupted the  
> planned flight order. I guess I didn’t understand the NATs planning  
> problem. As I remember frequency allocation first appeared when  
> pattern and pylon events were flown simultaneously and it was a no  
> brainier to extend frequency allocation to classes flown  
> simultaneously on different flight lines. Can you fill me in on the  
> problem?
>
> Thanks
>
> Jim Hiller
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca- 
> discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van Putte
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:14 AM
> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] For Sale
>
>
>
> I also remember a Nats meeting in which flying by class, instead of  
> by frequency, was discussed. Rick said (actually more like  
> 'bellowed') that frequency conflict problems would make it unsafe  
> and "nobody in the northwest would put up with it". We'd been doing  
> it in the southeast for many years. Well, here we are flying by class.
>
>
>
> Ron Van Putte
>
>
>
> On Jun 7, 2007, at 5:59 AM, Bob Richards wrote:
>
>
>
>
> I have to chuckle a little about the fixed gear Oly. Rick Allison  
> designed the Olympian. Back in the early '90s I made the comment to  
> him that I thought pattern planes would be better with fixed gear  
> (and fat fuselages), and he told me in no uncertain terms that  
> "Pattern planes would never fly right with fixed gear". It would  
> "screw up the force arrangement". I thought he was going to burst a  
> blood vessel.
>
> Never say never!! :-)
>
> Bob R.
>
>
>
> Ed Deaver <divesplat at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Piorun Olympian Medal with fixed gear and cheek cowls added.
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20070607/3205efaa/attachment-0001.html