[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

[Jon Lowe]

The sequences of that era also included a touch and go, which was the 
second or third manuever after takeoff.  That way, if the engine 
wouldn't idle, the flight was over in a hurry.  That was a big help in 
the days when we had 75+ pilots at a typical weekend contest that 
included not only pattern, but pylon racing and scale as well.  At the 
Wright Brothers Memorial contest in Dayton, OH, we had four pattern 
lines running simultaneously with 100+ pattern pilots.  And remember, 
early on we only had 5, 27mHz frequencies to fly on, with 5, 72 mHz 
frequencies coming later, plus 6 meters for anyone with a ham license.  
But the Memorial contest always seemed to fall on the same weekend as 
the Hamvention in Dayton, so anyone flying on 6 meters was crazy.


Jon Lowe


-----Original Message-----
From: billglaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net>
To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 7:26 pm
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year









Not that you're asking me, but after Johnny Brodbeck came out with the 
.45
greenhead, engine reliability and idle were a non-issue.  The engine 
not
only had it's own throttle body, (a la Bramco, for those who remember) 
but a
linked exhaust baffle/shutoff.  Dependable, powerful for it's day, and 
a
good, reliable idle for those long final approaches.  There may have 
been
other good engines,20(Fox .59 comes to mind) but in the LAX area, the  
green
head was the engine most used. 

Bill 

----- Original Message -----
From: "J N Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net> 

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

Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 8:17 PM 

Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year 
 


> Ron, how did you keep those old motors running long enough to finish 
the 

> flight and taxi back? I couldn't get then to run long enough to fly 
around 

> myself. 

> Jim 

> 

> -----Original Message----- 

> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 

> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van
> Putte 

> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:21 PM 

> To: General pattern discussion 

> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year 

> 

> Yeah, and the landing and taxi back to the box were scored too.  That 

> was right after dirt was invented, but before the round wheel was 

> invented. 

> 

> Ron VP 

> 

> On Jan 7, 2009, at 5:59 PM, billglaze wrote: 

> 

>> And when we did those 3 "maneuvers" in the 50's, they were followed 

>> by a figure 8, the crossover point of which was directly over the 

>> heads of the pilot and judges.(!)  That c
ompleted the "compulsory" 

>> portion of the pattern.  Other than, of course, the taxi out, 

>> (scored) and takeoff (scored.) 

>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Burton" <burtona at atmc.net> 

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

>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 5:07 PM 

>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year 

>> 

>> 

>>> SFO, Procedure turn, SFB were never one maneuver as I remember 

>>> back in the 

>>> early 70's when I was flying them. They were always 3 maneuvers 

>>> judged and 

>>> scored separately. 

>>> BTW, I hope they never put those 3 in the FAI schedules. They are 

>>> by far the 

>>> most difficult sequence to do correctly of any I've ever flown. 

>>> It's been a 

>>> long time, if ever, since I've given a 10 on a procedure turn. 

>>> It's still in 

>>> the SPA schedule and it's still rare to see a good one. 

>>> Dave Burton 

>>> 

>>> -----Original Message----- 

>>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org 

>>> [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Doug 

>>> Cronkhite 

>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:26 PM 

>>> To: General pattern discussion 

>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year 

>>> 
=0
A
>>> Great.. so the judging guide conflicts with itself even. 

>>> 

>>> Maneuver 3 states that since the stall turn (a turnaround 

>>> maneuver) is 

>>> between straight flight out and straight flight back, it's entry 
and 

>>> exit altitude should be the same. 

>>> 

>>> Then in maneuver 5, there is a specific note that since the 1/2 

>>> reverse 

>>> cuban 8 is a turnaround maneuver, its entry and exit altitude may 

>>> differ. 

>>> 

>>> IF the straight flight out, turnaround, and straight flight back 

>>> were 1 

>>> maneuver as they used to be (SFO, procedure turn, SFB) the the 

>>> relative 

>>> altitude would be a judging criteria. However, since these are 3 

>>> separate maneuvers, the performance of one maneuver MAY NOT be 

>>> used as a 

>>> judging criteria for another. To quote another part of the judging 

>>> handbook: 

>>> 

>>> "*Be independent*. Ignore the scores of other judges. Do not 
converse 

>>> about scores. Score each maneuver on its individual value. Dismiss 

>>> consideration of each maneuver as soon as you record its score." 

>>> 

>>> Doug 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> J N Hiller wrote: 

>>>> 

>>>> I said I was finished once b
ut you guys are having way too much 

>>>> trouble with this turnaround altitude issue. 

>>>> 

>>>> Here is the link to the NSRCA Judging Section. Just click on 

>>>> Sportsman. 

>>>> 

>>>> http://nsrca.us/judginghome.html 

>>>> 

>>>> Jim 

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> 

>>>> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 

>>>> ---- 

>>>> 

>>>> _______________________________________________ 

>>>> 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 

>>> 

>>> 

>>> _______________________________________________ 

>>> 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 

> 

> _______________________________________________ 

> NSRCA-discussion mailing list 

> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org 

> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/l
istinfo/nsrca-discussion 

> 

> _______________________________________________ 

> 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