[NSRCA-discussion] Very quiet on here

[Doug Cronkhite]

Actually IMAC was first with the 150 degree box. It didn't have the desired effect. People still flew far out, but now could fly faster and didn't have to worry about the box violations much. It didn't change the footprint of flights at all.

-Doug

On Aug 18, 2013, at 5:08 PM, James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com> wrote:

> The 150 degree box is a good idea, I believe Bill Bennett changed the TOC box to that early on so pilots would fly closer and the crowd could see the airplanes better.  I suspect we'd fly in closer with the wider box but I'd bet we'd still be out further than 200 meters a good part of the time.
> 
> Jim O
> 
> On Aug 18, 2013, at 3:49 PM, J N Hiller wrote:
> 
>> Being an old guy myself I’d like to fly closer in for better visibility without blowing the box. Attached is a drawing showing the box size at 200 M deep and 60 degrees.
>> I also included a front depth using a 150-degree box that was proposed some years back as a reference. Unlike an angle box boundary a rectangular box end would be hard to judge, subjective at best.
>> Jim Hiller
>>  
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]On Behalf Of James Oddino
>> Sent: Saturday, August 17, 2013 2:00 PM
>> To: General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Very quiet on here
>>  
>> Well I started this hoping I would learn something that would make me fly better, but I can see it opening a "can of worms" as they say.  Yes, it could be a step towards automated judging but we're not going to like it for judging the box.  In fact I predict it would show that many are flying well out past 200 Meters most of the time in order to stay within the + 60 degree box lines.  It is probably a good time to start a conversation as they say in politics, about revising the rules, and as an old guy I'd like to see the 200 meter, or there about, max stay and the 60 degree lines go.  Instead of the 60 degree lines, I'd prefer a distance, say whatever it is at the 200 meter/ 60 degree intersection on each side of center and make it a rectangular box.  We'd still need a "place it where it can be judged" rule.  What do you all think?
>>  
>> I will be happy to write it up for the KFactor after I get a little more time on it.  This was the first day out with it in a pattern airplane.
>>  
>> It is hard to believe it is over 40 years since I was in my garage building radios.  It was about the same time Steve Jobs was in his garage.  I think I picked the wrong hobby.  Anyway, the folks nowadays have it made as far as equipment goes but it was still fun at the time.
>>  
>> Jim O
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Aug 17, 2013, at 6:17 AM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Ok, Jim, how about an article for the KFactor on this, and how you set it up!
>>  
>> Also, just read an interesting article on your S&O radio system, here:
>>  
>> http://www.rchalloffame.org/Exhibits/Exhibit22/index.html
>>  
>> That site has a lot of fascinating history on it about how proportional came on the scene.  I witnessed the early days, and saw a lot of the "I ain't got it" dancing.
>> Jon
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: James Oddino <joddino at socal.rr.com>
>> To: General pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2013 4:01 pm
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Very quiet on here
>> 
>> Check this out at the following link.  It might lead to an interesting discussion:
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> http://www.rcgroups.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1965012#post25863336
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> On Aug 16, 2013, at 9:27 AM, Jon Lowe wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Very quiet.  Got an email from someone saying he wasn't getting copied, but looking at the archives, the last message posted was from Aug 12th, so I thought I'd test.
>> Jon
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>  
>> <Ret Bx.pdf>_______________________________________________
>> 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/20130819/456434fb/attachment.html>