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

Wed Aug 6 12:17:52 AKDT 2008

Agreed.

Matt
---- "Woodward wrote: 
> 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>
> 
> 