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

Wed Aug 6 06:35:36 AKDT 2008

The ³Chin² Mix...  There has to be a way to run with that...

Is this ANY different than using a snap switch/button which people have been
using for at least 20 years??   Up until masters I always used a snap roll
button for my snaps...and yes, sometimes you were leading with a little
elevator prior to hitting it.  It¹s the same thing.

The reality is, at some point you have to start flying the snaps to get them
right.  Each one, for each flight is a little different.  I wish I could do
it as well as others, but even at my level of proficiency I¹m still better
off sticking the snaps then using a switch so I can alter the amount of
elevator/ail/rud through the snap.

I have to believe Troy and Jason ³fly² their snaps like any other manuever
(just REALLY quickly) and would consistently outperform any preset snap
unless all other factors (wind speed and direction most notably) were also
controlled.

On 8/6/08 10:18 AM, "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 -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.. 
>  
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> Get more from your digital life. Find out how.
> <http://www.windowslive.com/default.html?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_Home2_082008>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20080806/0eda8db7/attachment.html>