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

Wed Aug 6 09:33:33 AKDT 2008

You are correct, but that does not mean I still don't Double Weedon better than anyone.  In fact, ask Andrew J, I never fly any maneuver the same way twice!

From: astafford at swtexas.netTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgDate: Wed, 6 Aug 2008 19:28:54 +0300Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Have we lost our way? (Sorry, George, but your question inspired this)

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 CohenSent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 7:22 PMTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgSubject: 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 -0700From: jpavlick at idseng.comTo: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.orgSubject: 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 PavlickEarl 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 

To: General pattern discussion 

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 -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. 

_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________NSRCA-discussion mailing listNSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.orghttp://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion

Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live. Share now!
_________________________________________________________________
Reveal your inner athlete and share it with friends on Windows Live.
http://revealyourinnerathlete.windowslive.com?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WLYIA_whichathlete_us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20080806/8f3dd372/attachment-0001.html>