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

Wed Aug 6 06:27:55 AKDT 2008

Jeremy,

Nicely written.  Please feel free to post any time :-) 

Jim W.

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of JEREMY
CHINN
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:18 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George,but
your question inspired this)

I won't pretend like I have enough experience to comment on the effects
of what you mentioned in Pattern, however I've been part of competition
for a long time and within many different realms, model aviation and
other..... 

The same thing happens in almost every sport. The sport is created,
technological innovation happens, at some point, someone screams uncle
because the amount of innovation has gone past their comfort level.
Everyone has their own comfort level, so usually rules creation takes
place when enough of the collective group is beyond their comfort level
with the particular issue at hand to force them to make up a rule to
combat that issue... 

Formula One auto racing had traction control and ABS to deal with. 
Mountain biking went from unsuspended bikes to fully suspended bikes.
Olympic track cycling had aerodynamic bikes (go read about Graham Obree
to see how the rules making can be detrimental to the sport)
Bass fishing had to deal with electronic fish finders. 

Freeflight has computerized timers and actuation of the surfaces.....
(is that still freeflight?)
Its pretty easy to say that any or all of those above are cheating. The
flip side of that says that someone had to take the time to figure those
'tools' out and set them appropriately to get the job done. 

IMHO, what tends to differentiate the things above from the pilot
actually flying his bird is the idea that it's entirely possible for
someone other than the pilot can set up the tool or switch to do
something that the pilot may not be able to do. IE, Shulman moves the
stick X% to do X maneuver, so my friend programs that much deflection on
the switch for me and Bang, I have a Shulman X maneuver in my sequence.
Yeah, I know that is an oversimplification, but I think it makes the
point. 

Have we lost our way? Nope.... Has our use of technology gone to far?
Maybe, Probably, Yes.

BTW, at the next NATS, I'll be sitting off to the side and will use a
sophisticated recording device to snatch radio signals from the air.
Following the NATS, I will then be selling pre-formatted mixes for each
of the maneuvers in each sequence. This will come in CAMPAC and SD Card
formats for Futaba radios. To ensure the high zoot pattern nature of the
product, I will only record on carbonfiber molded memory which I will
source at great cost directly from Australia. Somenzini, Shulman, Jesky
and Wickizer mixes will retail for about $400 ea. The Chinn mixes will
retail for $1.95 LOL! 

________________________________

Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 21:06:35 -0700
From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George,
but your question inspired this)

Sillyness..  <http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/03.gif> 

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.
<http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/30.gif> 

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

 <http://mail.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys2/18.gif> 

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

________________________________

Get more from your digital life. Find out how.
<http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080806/e18d72a2/attachment.html>