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

Wed Aug 6 08:29:16 AKDT 2008

IMPOSSIBLE!!  The key to the double weedon was never being able to do it
EXACTLY the same way twice.  

  _____  

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Michael Cohen
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:22 PM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George, but
your question inspired this)

They can't beat me at a Double Weedon, I have that one mastered better than
the originator!

  _____  

Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 08:44:39 -0700
From: jpavlick at idseng.com
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George, but
your question inspired this)

I'm just sitting here flying Pattern in my easy chair (I have Aerofly Pro on
my laptop)...

In reality, I bet if you ask Jason, Andrew, Brett, Dave L. or anybody at
that level, how much they use the magic bells and whistles in the radio
versus how much they do with their fingers, you'd probably be surprised. I
bet you could hand any of these guys an analog transmitter and they'd still
out fly you. No matter how much money you spend. :)

John Pavlick

Earl Haury <ejhaury at comcast.net> wrote:

Overall - pattern is alive and well. Jeremy makes numerous good points, but
I believe technology is more the life of pattern than the demise. 

Don Dewey published an article in the old RCM magazine in the early '70's
predicting that with "modern" radios soon a pattern flier would press a
couple of buttons and the model would execute a perfect pattern - all from
the comfort of one's easy chair - a "skyport" would open in the roof to
allow viewing (no more flying fields required). Of course this was nonsense
then and still is. There are way to many variable forces acting on an
airplane to automate any given maneuver for repeatable execution. There are
closed loop systems that might be able to handle the task - but they're
already outside the rules for obvious reasons.

OTOH - I suspect a lot of us are attracted to pattern for the technological
challenge as much as for aerobatics. Our equipment is tons better than it
was years ago and the sequences have advanced to take advantage. Electronic
"gadgets" as mixes, conditions, rates, expo, etc. are tools that us
technophobes (and mere mortals) try to use to gain a little on the talented.
Take away the technology and the elite become more separated from us
mortals!

I would say that anyone who yearns for the days of yore should consider CL
Stunt - but good grief - some of those guys are flying E! At least the
sequence hasn't changed in 50+ years - egads, I'd find that boring!

Earl

----- Original Message ----- 

From: JEREMY CHINN <mailto:lagrue at hotmail.com>  

To: General pattern discussion <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 9:18 AM

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>  

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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

  _____  

Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share
now!
<http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_W
LYIA_whichathlete_us> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080806/cd0d099f/attachment-0001.html>