[NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Thu Jan 8 07:31:15 AKST 2009

Just be careful about the amount of current that it draws. I can't see it being a lot normally but it may get pretty high as it tries to lock the wheel up (full on). You may want to try it with a current meter and a switch (full on) to see what it is worst case before connecting it to a speed control. I bet you can use a fairly small (light) speed controller. Let me know how this works.

John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 1/8/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
To: jpavlick at idseng.com, "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 4:13 PM

Thanks John for the suggestion. I can just buy one now. A plug and play devise. Great. I may dig them out for an upcoming project.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of John Pavlick
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 6:04 AM
To: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year

Speed control = "variable voltage power source"...

John Pavlick

--- On Thu, 1/8/09, J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net> wrote:

From: J N Hiller <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year
To: "General pattern discussion" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Date: Thursday, January 8, 2009, 6:51 AMBrakes! Oh yes, I have used mechanical brakes and have a pair of new unusedDuBro electric disk brakes a friend gave me some years ago. I thought aboutusing them on a scale project but never came up with a variable voltagepower source. As small as they are the on-off switch would probably workjust fine.Jim  -----Original Message-----From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of Ron Van PutteSent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 7:21 PMTo: General pattern discussionSubject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year Yes, we did keep them running until the airplane was in the hangar. BTW, we also used brakes back then too, so we could demonstrate taxiand a full stop just before takeoff.  Then we had to come to a fullstop (straight ahead) after landing, before taxiing back to thehangar and stopping in the hangar.  Just producing brakes was a"cottage industry"
 back then.  I still have some mechanical andelectric brakes in a baby jar somewhere. Ron VP On Jan 7, 2009, at 7:17 PM, J N Hiller wrote: > 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, theywere followed>> by a figure 8, the crossover point of which was directly over the>> heads of the pilot and
 judges.(!)  That completed 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 3maneuvers>>> 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 everflown.>>> 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 OfDoug>>> Cronkhite>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2009 4:26 PM>>> To: General pattern discussion>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Happy New Year>>>>>> 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'sentry 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 itsscore.">>>>>> Doug>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> J N Hiller wrote:>>>>>>>> I said I was finished once but you guys are having way toomuch>>>> 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/listinfo/nsrca-discussion>> _______________________________________________> NSRCA-discussion mailing list> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion _______________________________________________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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20090108/60f1760f/attachment.html>