[NSRCA-discussion] Alabama Bound

[Bill Glaze]

Bob:
The quick answer about maneuvers going behind the flight line is:  We had a mandatory precision pattern that ncluded a figure 8, which had the crossover flown directly over your head.  And, there was no penalty for positioning--indeed, you could go behind the deadline, because there wasn't any deadline.  And, all this with radios that weren't 10% as reliable as what we have now.  All 3 classes flew off the same maneuver list; you just picked the ones you wanted/could fly, and in whatever order you wished, making up your own routine, positioning and orienting the maneuvers as suited you.  I've just scratched the surface here, I'm already getting too wordy, but it was sure different in the50's and 60's.
Bill Glaze
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bob Richards 
  To: General pattern discussion 
  Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 9:29 PM
  Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Alabama Bound


        Well, yes. But haven't the pattern rules been "bent" before. I remember the "normally aspirated" (or some such) in the rules, but the YS and later OS supercharged engines were allowed. And don't get me started on the sound checks... Years back, I remember one CD at the Nats pilot's meeting making the comment "we all know where the switch on the transmitter is". 

        As for the manuevers you flew in the "olden times", didn't they have maneuvers that went behind the flight line?  :-)  I think the patterns they are flying are similar to what was flown in the 70s. 

        I like pattern. I am also intrigued by SPA and really want to try it. Some chose not to participate in SPA because of the four strokes - and that is certainly their choice to make. But, a similar thing happened when pattern went full turnaround, many chose not to continue pattern - and that was also their choice to make. At least we have a LOT of choices now - SPA, BPA, IMAC, and Pattern. I remember when, if you wanted to compete in RC, it was pattern, pylon, or scale. If you had really fast reflexes, you might do pylon. If you were really smooth on the sticks, you might fly pattern. If you were niether, you flew scale. :-O

        Bob R.


        --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Bill Glaze <billglaze at bellsouth.net> wrote:



          True, Bob.  But setting up rules, then "bending" them doesn't seem quite right to me, either.  In the case of engines, I can understand, (in many cases, they simply are no longer available) but in the case of airframes, changing hinge lines, lengthening the fuselage, clipping the wings, enlarging the rudder, making a tail-dragger into a tricycle gear, (although I blame Sig for that) etc. etc. doesn't impress me either.  And, the patterns aren't like we used to fly, either, in "olden times".  (In fact, I don't know when this stuff they're flying came in; certainly after my era.)  However, if you take off the nice, new Tru-Turn spinners, the propellor nuts are like the ones we used to use.  (In some cases, anyway.)
          Bill Glaze

            ----- Original Message ----- 
            From: Bob Richards 
            To: General pattern discussion 
            Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 2:02 PM
            Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Alabama Bound


                  Well, lets keep it completely vintage. Non computer radios. Proline or Kraft only, (no 2.4g conversions!). No schneurle engines (can you still find decent cross-flow engines?). Fox plugs. Dubro chrome hub wheels, or the really heavy Kraft wheels. Wooden Top-Flite or Rev-Up props. 

                  (Sarchasim off...)

                  Lets face it, some concessions have to be made to make it at least practical. How many of us would want to dig up a 70s era engine and keep it running? I don't think it is the equipment so much as it is the flying style that they are trying to recreate, and my hat is off to them for that. It won't be everyone's cup-o-tea, but neither is today's pattern.

                  Bob R.


                  --- On Wed, 11/25/09, Pete Cosky <pcosky at comcast.net> wrote:




                    I'm with you John. When I was into racing anything vintage had to be....well...vintage.
                      ----- Original Message ----- 
                      From: John Pavlick 
                      To: General pattern discussion 
                      Sent: Wednesday, November 25, 2009 10:13 AM
                      Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Alabama Bound


                            Electrics in SPA? Jeez, that's kind of hard to stomach. Next they're going to allow electronic fuel-injection and anti-lock brakes in Vintage Sports Car Racing. LOL

                            John Pavlick



                              


                 


--------------------------------------------------------------------

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

          -----Inline Attachment Follows-----


          _______________________________________________
          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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20091126/217cdc32/attachment.html>