[NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George, but your question inspired this)

Tue Aug 5 20:56:49 AKDT 2008

No worries on the mention. Sorry it didn't happen in the first place bro.. 
As for the pulling the stick back and making it snap, I agree with you. But then again, my plane does that every time I get to slow and the control surfaces are neutral.. lol
hagn

Chris 

----- Original Message ----
From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 9:23:20 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George, but your question inspired this)

No, I'm not putting down the simple things like dual rates, exponentials, simples mixes. My point was, if you can just pull past 90% on your stick and cause a snap to occur, that's taking it too far. It's a work-around to the timed delay clause of the rules. To me it just stinks, and I think it is contrary to what pattern is meant to stand for. Then again... so are snap rolls, but that's a topic for a different day. Things have just been too slow on the board lately... mostly since the Nats. I'm trying to get people's brains working again.

Matt

P.S. I appreciate the mention in the K-Factor this month, it means a lot to me.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: krishlan fitzsimmons 
To: General pattern discussion 
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 11:06 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George,but your question inspired this)

Sillyness.. 

I use a dual rate switch for more throw for stall, spins and snaps. I don't use a snap switch or a spin switch. I do use mixing. 
You are saying I shouldn't be allowed to use a dual rate switch or a mix to help my poorly designed plane to fly a little more like a better designed plane that alot of us can't afford that takes less mix or could maybe get away with none? 

Sillyness Matt. 

Although, I'm not sure why people use a snap switch. In my opinion it's so much easier to fly them with the sticks. They present better IMO. Take for instance the 45 down, 1 1/2 snap. Using a switch I see people way steeper than 45 as they let off the switch. Why? Because the up ele is still held until the last second. 
Switches don't make you a top pilot. Practice and skill does.. If people need em, I say use em. That's why they are there. For me, I'll stick with just a single dual rate switch.. 

Sorry. Just my thoughts... 
Disclamer: These words are not to be used against me in any way shape or form or a cloud will instantly form over you while you are flying and you will get dumped on before you can put away your gear. (Ruining your cell phone because it falls into a puddle)

Oh wait, that's what happened to us (D7) several times while practicing at the nats.. lol

Chris 

----- Original Message ----
From: Matthew Frederick <mjfrederick at cox.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 5, 2008 8:19:10 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George, but your question inspired this)

Call me crazy if you want, but I'm getting sick of all these "conditions" 
being allowed in pattern. The whole point of what we do puts emphasis on the 
pilot being in control of the model at all times. It's one thing to flip a 
switch to enable higher rates for a snap, stall, slow roll, whatever. I 
think we're going too far with just pulling the stick past 90 degrees to 
instill a snap "condition" that will automatically perform a snap roll with 
the programmed inputs. In the rules it states that you can't have a "timed" 
switch, witch basically was put in to avoid people from programming a snap 
switch that gave the elevator a slight lead on all the other inputs. 
Allowing the elevator (or any other) stick to provide this same advantage is 
tantamount to cheating, it just happens to pass the current rules test. The 
more I hear about people putting these types of conditions that are merely 
contingent on stick position, the more I think it's coming time for a rules 
change to stop it. We're supposed to be better than this. I'm probably 
waaaay out on a limb by myself here, but from where I sit having started in 
pattern back in the late 80's, I think we're losing our way by allowing 
computers to perform operations that should be required by the pilots. I 
don't even believe in programmed mixes and avoid them like the plague.

Matt

P.S. Before anyone who knows me asks, yes, I did fly a Genesis, and yes I 
did have elevator to rudder mix on that... hopefully my next plane won't 
suck like that... 

_______________________________________________
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/20080806/239f6b74/attachment.html>