[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Thu Jan 8 06:40:46 AKST 2009

You and Ron vP are really taking me down memory lane--I love it!  Along with 
the touch and go, there was the 3 turn spiral dive; full aileron and up 
elevator.  Probably other maneuvers I'll remember later. As far as the touch 
and go being after (anything) it was pilot's option as to order of 
maneuvers, (Other than the compulsory stuff) with everyone making up their 
own order of sequence.  In fact, it was the order of the day to ask the 
judge "is anything left?" (on the score sheet) after you had finished up, 
and before you called "landing" to make sure you hadn't forgotten any 
maneuvers.
Also, I recall ~1957, being contest director at a LARKS contest in Turlock. 
This out-of-the-way town in the Central Valley of Calif. closed their 
lightplane airport for the weekend, and we held our contest at that unusual 
place to get some participation from the Bay Area modelers, Dale Root being 
the principal flyer.  I remember saying to my wife, (who ably assisted me) 
"well, we at least had an average sized turnout."  The turnout?  144 
contestants.
Sorry to be so long winded; most others are probably not that interested in 
this stuff.  Shutting up now.  Bill
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jon Lowe" <jonlowe at aol.com>
To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 10:27 AM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year


> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion