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

[nathanking at cox.net]

I too don't have the experience here, but I think the previous post was right on. Just look at the current swimming flap at the Olympics. They're using full body $600 suits designed by NASA. Do you think they're going to break a record set in the '70's by some guy in swimming trunks and a mullet? You bet! Good or bad for the sport? I don't know if there's a long enough record of this to be able to see any significant trends, positive or negative.

Respectfully,
Nathan King

---- JEREMY CHINN <lagrue at hotmail.com> wrote: 
> 
> 
> 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 -0700From: homeremodeling2003 at yahoo.comTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgSubject: 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 PMSubject: [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.MattP.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 listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://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