[NSRCA-discussion] My 2 cents
David
circuitboard35 at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 23 06:06:26 AKDT 2014
I just thought I would add my semi outside thoughts on this. First a little background on myself. I have been flying rc on and off since around 75. I have never previously been a competitive flyer. I preferred to be one of the ground crew. To me, pattern was the pinnacle of skill in rc. About 5 years ago I dove back into flying, with a GP U-Can-Do 3D. I like how the plane flys, but I really can't get into the 3D style of flying. To me it is not flying as much as it is controlled falling, going against what I was taught about flying.
This summer, I decided I wanted to give pattern a try for myself. I was sure it still existed, but if it wasn't for the internet I would never have found it. I can remember the LHS carrying a Dirty Birdy or a Kaos, and even seeing them show up at the field occasionally. The price on these kits were not out of line with other planes of their size at the time. This made it possible for some people to just fly them as sport flyers. They were made by mainstream manufacturers and pattern was public enough that as has been stated by other people here that at least the rc public knew who Hanno was. I would never have known where Liechtenstein was.
Back to now, about two weeks ago, my wife bought me a "used" Vanquish kit. There is only one competition left in D5 for the season, and I will be there as a spectator, and probably making myself a pain in the butt to anyone who stops moving long enough to answer all the questions I can come up with. But the point I was going to was that with a most basic 2M pattern plane starting at well over $500 dollars, and well over $1k to get that plane in the air, the average person isn't going to just go out and fly something like this when you can get so many other planes that are bigger, 3D, faster or what ever for much less money.
They day after we got the kit, we took it out to the local field here, and out of all the people here at the fairgrounds that day, there was only one other person that had even heard of precision aerobatics. And unfortunately the field here is so rough I don't think I will be flying here.
My final point is that if in a few years this old dog learns a few new tricks,
> On Aug 22, 2014, at 3:00 PM, nsrca-discussion-request at lists.nsrca.org wrote:
>
> Send NSRCA-discussion mailing list submissions to
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> nsrca-discussion-request at lists.nsrca.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> nsrca-discussion-owner at lists.nsrca.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NSRCA-discussion digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (John Pavlick)
> 2. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (James Hiller)
> 3. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (John Pavlick)
> 4. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (Ron Hansen)
> 5. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (Scott Smith)
> 6. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (John Ford)
> 7. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (Joe Lachowski)
> 8. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (George Kennie)
> 9. Re: 2015 proposed sequences (lucky macy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 00:40:26 -0400
> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick26 at att.net>
> To: "'Scott Smith'" <vze23c3q at gmail.com>, "'General pattern
> discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <015301cfbdc3$33154ca0$993fe5e0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Scott ? wasn?t the Outside loop from the top maneuver back in the ?old? 402 sequence (around 2006) done as an ?upwind? maneuver? I can?t find any of my old call sheets but I think it was.
>
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>
>
> idslogo2
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
>
>
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
>
>
> A couple questions on the intermediate sequence:
>
>
>
> Maneuver 6 Outside loop from the top (U) ? Would that not typically be considered a downwind maneuver?
>
>
>
> And maneuver 12 Square Loop (D) - Would that not typically be considered an upwind maneuver?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/a1658a8f/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/a1658a8f/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 21 Aug 2014 22:13:34 -0700
> From: "James Hiller" <jnhiller at earthlink.net>
> To: <jpavlick at idseng.com>, "'John Pavlick'" <jpavlick26 at att.net>,
> "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <000f01cfbdc7$d3b304a0$7b190de0$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I'm not Scott but I have 2007 call cards (Attached)showing the outside loop from the top - upwind (402-6).
> Jim Hiller
>
>
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2014 9:40 PM
> To: 'Scott Smith'; 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
> Scott ? wasn?t the Outside loop from the top maneuver back in the ?old? 402 sequence (around 2006) done as an ?upwind? maneuver? I can?t find any of my old call sheets but I think it was.
>
> John Pavlick
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
> idslogo2
> Integrated Development Services
>
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
> A couple questions on the intermediate sequence:
>
> Maneuver 6 Outside loop from the top (U) ? Would that not typically be considered a downwind maneuver?
>
> And maneuver 12 Square Loop (D) - Would that not typically be considered an upwind maneuver?
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140821/c399da33/attachment.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140821/c399da33/attachment.png>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: 2007CallCards.pdf
> Type: application/pdf
> Size: 20166 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140821/c399da33/attachment.pdf>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 01:28:12 -0400
> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick26 at att.net>
> To: "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <015901cfbdc9$df688980$9e399c80$@net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Yes. This is painfully true. I only got involved in Pattern through a
> strange sequence of events: I learned to fly right before turnaround had
> started. I flew Pre-Novice and Novice with a Sig Kougar that I built (my
> second big R/C airplane). I was just a 15-year old kid at the time. Then I
> discovered cars and girls. Time passed... When I started flying again I
> decided that I still wanted to fly Pattern. After asking at 3 local hobby
> shops I couldn't find ANY information about Pattern contests in the area.
> Then one day, someone in my local club told me about a "Pattern Primer"
> contest in Massachusetts. I think he found out about it when he was at a fun
> fly or something. Since there was NO Pattern activity in my home state of
> Connecticut I planned on building a "real" Pattern plane and then driving up
> to the contest in 2 weeks in my Saturn SC-2. A week of long nights and
> determination produced the coolest Pattern plane I ever had: a red 40-size
> Kaos Jr. with an OS40 FSR. I trimmed it out after work one day and I thought
> I was ready for anything. When I got to the contest I thought I was in the
> wrong place. I didn't recognize any of the planes. The giant things that I
> saw were not what I was expecting. Where were the Tiporares and Curares? LOL
>
> OK so I was a bit behind the times but the fact is I had NO IDEA what
> Pattern was all about and I had to go looking for it. It wasn't in my face
> every time I opened a model airplane magazine like it was back in the 70's.
> I survived the "contest" and went on to finish out a season of 401 with the
> little Kaos and then I picked up a used Focus 1 and a Dodge Grand Caravan so
> I could haul the massive airplane around. I went on to win the D1 / 402
> district championship with that airplane and I eventually went to the NATs
> twice in the Caravan. I'm on a bit of a hiatus now because I'm in the middle
> of launching a new startup. But I WILL return.
>
> THIS is why there are fewer and fewer people at Pattern contests. Aside from
> the cost of fuel and the crummy economy the problem is really simple. It's
> not the difficulty of the sequences or the cost of the equipment. It's not
> the weight rule or anything like that. It's really very simple: No one knows
> what "Pattern" is anymore. How do we fix that? That's the REAL problem.
>
> John Pavlick
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of John Ford via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:36 AM
> To: Whodaddy Whodaddy; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
> To my knowledge, I don't think I've heard too many (or any) pilots quit
> pattern because it was too hard to do, or too expensive, or anything else.
> IMAC and helicopters are at least as expensive, if not more, and the
> classes' difficulty levels mirror our own, in my opinion.
>
> What makes the difference is marketing. IMAC and helis are always high
> profile at any event, the promoters do a good job of "selling" the pilots
> and the equipment. Hobby shops always showcase the latest or the biggest.
> The magazine adds almost always choose IMAC or helis to promote radios,
> batteries, or fuels.
>
> Back when Pattern was big and local contests had 40 pilots, the cover of the
> magazines featured Hanno, Ivan, or Rhet, and the full-page glossy back cover
> was of Ivan and his Summit 3, endorsing Carl Golberg widgets.
>
> Today, if you walk in off the street as a rank beginner and you try to
> "find" pattern, you gotta dig deep, go far, send lots of emails, and finally
> you might (never for sure) come across a contest flyer. Then you go to the
> contest and you find a bunch of really nice people, willing to drown you in
> advice and help, but you realize pretty quickly that this group of people
> are a bit off-center.sharply focused on planes, endless trimming, practicing
> to the exclusion of all else, and sleeping on a bed of nails at night. Above
> all, almost nobody knows they even exist in this little hidden world of RC
> idealism.
>
> Go to a hobby shop and say you want to do helicopters.same reaction as
> walking into a ER saying you have chest pains.
> Go to a hobby shop and say you want to do pattern.hmmm."well, there's a guy
> I used to know that did some of that, I think, not sure if he's still
> around.haven't seen him for a few years"...
>
> That's where the difference is.
>
> John
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> K factors should be rethought .. An eight point role with my Phoenix 8 is
> alot different than with my current 2 meter .. Its like flying a gift now
> days other than centering of the maneuver yet retains the same or close to
> the same k factor as many years past... Food for thought...
>>
>> Once again the current proposed pattern needs fixed or the numbers will
> dwindle by at least one nxt year.. I can promise that..
>>
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:34 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Advanced and Masters are not our entry classes and should not affect
> future participation. Those new to pattern should begin in either Sportsman
> or Intermediate depending on skill level. When a flyer feels he is ready to
> move up, he will try flying the next class in practice. If it is too
> difficult to even see a way to fly that sequence reasonably, then that pilot
> was not ready to move up and should stay in his current class another year
> (or more). We do not lose people because they stayed in their current class,
> we lose them because they moved up when not ready and find they are
> outclassed without the vision, coordination, time to practice (or name your
> reason) to be competitive. Not competitive for winning, just competitive.
>>> Both Masters and Advanced can, and probably will be, changed next year.
> Any substantial problems can be addressed then. Many have tested these
> sequences. All have have flown them successfully, if not always happily. We
> can go on and on about ugly maneuvers, difficulty levels and dislike of
> change but that happens every cycle.
>>>
>>> Just for comparison here are Advanced and Masters from 20 years ago.
> Overall both appear somewhat easier than the current sequences we are flying
> but not a lot. Total KFactors are a bit lower. Also we are flying many of
> the same maneuvers. I hope you noticed the knife edge top of the cobra in
> masters. If you go back even further you can find a two roll loop in the
> days before retracts...
>>>
>>> John Gayer
>>>
>>>
>>> <ejceefij.png><eibcgfea.png>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 03:46:58 -0400
> From: "Ron Hansen" <rcpilot at wowway.com>
> To: <jpavlick at idseng.com>, "'John Pavlick'" <jpavlick26 at att.net>,
> "'General pattern discussion'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <01f701cfbddd$40510f70$c0f32e50$@wowway.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> John,
>
>
>
> That may have been the case pre-internet but now it isn't that hard to find
> out about pattern through RC Universe and other similar sites and there is a
> pattern article in Model Aviation every other month. I do thing that having
> a pattern article in Model Aviation every other month is a bit
> disappointing. The real problem is all of the above. There isn't one or
> two smoking guns but rather many such as : (1) pattern visibility (which is
> what you said), (2) wow factor (IMAC heli), (3) pattern requires a lot of
> practice, (4) competition is intimidating, (5) pattern planes aren't cheap,
> (6) traveling to contests aren't cheap and I'm sure there are others that
> I'm missing.
>
>
>
> Quite frankly I'm fairly happy with the turnout in D4. We normally get 20+
> and we get 25+ and closer to 30 when we team with D5 which is a real treat.
> The problem D4/D5 may have is that the diehards are getting older. Heck I'm
> 47 and I'm on the young side of the crowd. There are signs of hope for
> D4/D5 with younger pilots like Brandon and Greyson. If they don't meet
> girls there is a chance that they will attract other younger pilots and the
> cycle will continue. I find that the club members I run into just don't see
> the attraction of pattern. They really don't care to learn to fly a nice
> straight slow roll or 4-pt roll. They want to hover and yank the sticks
> around. Watching pattern is like watching paint dry unfortunately. The
> real attraction of pattern is learning how to battle the elements and put
> that plane exactly where you want it time and time again no matter what the
> conditions. Most AMA members could care less about that.
>
>
>
> I think "a" solution but certainly not the only one is to continue to
> attract the younger crowd like Mike Mueller did with Brandon and Bill
> Pritchett did with Greyson and have them attract some of their friends.
>
>
>
> How many pattern dads are there out there, that weren't able for whatever
> reason to get their sons or daughters hooked on our sport? That right there
> says a lot.
>
>
>
> Ron
>
>
>
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:28 AM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
>
>
> Yes. This is painfully true. I only got involved in Pattern through a
> strange sequence of events: I learned to fly right before turnaround had
> started. I flew Pre-Novice and Novice with a Sig Kougar that I built (my
> second big R/C airplane). I was just a 15-year old kid at the time. Then I
> discovered cars and girls. Time passed... When I started flying again I
> decided that I still wanted to fly Pattern. After asking at 3 local hobby
> shops I couldn't find ANY information about Pattern contests in the area.
> Then one day, someone in my local club told me about a "Pattern Primer"
> contest in Massachusetts. I think he found out about it when he was at a fun
> fly or something. Since there was NO Pattern activity in my home state of
> Connecticut I planned on building a "real" Pattern plane and then driving up
> to the contest in 2 weeks in my Saturn SC-2. A week of long nights and
> determination produced the coolest Pattern plane I ever had: a red 40-size
> Kaos Jr. with an OS40 FSR. I trimmed it out after work one day and I thought
> I was ready for anything. When I got to the contest I thought I was in the
> wrong place. I didn't recognize any of the planes. The giant things that I
> saw were not what I was expecting. Where were the Tiporares and Curares? LOL
>
> OK so I was a bit behind the times but the fact is I had NO IDEA what
> Pattern was all about and I had to go looking for it. It wasn't in my face
> every time I opened a model airplane magazine like it was back in the 70's.
> I survived the "contest" and went on to finish out a season of 401 with the
> little Kaos and then I picked up a used Focus 1 and a Dodge Grand Caravan so
> I could haul the massive airplane around. I went on to win the D1 / 402
> district championship with that airplane and I eventually went to the NATs
> twice in the Caravan. I'm on a bit of a hiatus now because I'm in the middle
> of launching a new startup. But I WILL return.
>
> THIS is why there are fewer and fewer people at Pattern contests. Aside from
> the cost of fuel and the crummy economy the problem is really simple. It's
> not the difficulty of the sequences or the cost of the equipment. It's not
> the weight rule or anything like that. It's really very simple: No one knows
> what "Pattern" is anymore. How do we fix that? That's the REAL problem.
>
> John Pavlick
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
> Behalf Of John Ford via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:36 AM
> To: Whodaddy Whodaddy; General pattern discussion
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
> To my knowledge, I don't think I've heard too many (or any) pilots quit
> pattern because it was too hard to do, or too expensive, or anything else.
> IMAC and helicopters are at least as expensive, if not more, and the
> classes' difficulty levels mirror our own, in my opinion.
>
> What makes the difference is marketing. IMAC and helis are always high
> profile at any event, the promoters do a good job of "selling" the pilots
> and the equipment. Hobby shops always showcase the latest or the biggest.
> The magazine adds almost always choose IMAC or helis to promote radios,
> batteries, or fuels.
>
> Back when Pattern was big and local contests had 40 pilots, the cover of the
> magazines featured Hanno, Ivan, or Rhet, and the full-page glossy back cover
> was of Ivan and his Summit 3, endorsing Carl Golberg widgets.
>
> Today, if you walk in off the street as a rank beginner and you try to
> "find" pattern, you gotta dig deep, go far, send lots of emails, and finally
> you might (never for sure) come across a contest flyer. Then you go to the
> contest and you find a bunch of really nice people, willing to drown you in
> advice and help, but you realize pretty quickly that this group of people
> are a bit off-center.sharply focused on planes, endless trimming, practicing
> to the exclusion of all else, and sleeping on a bed of nails at night. Above
> all, almost nobody knows they even exist in this little hidden world of RC
> idealism.
>
> Go to a hobby shop and say you want to do helicopters.same reaction as
> walking into a ER saying you have chest pains.
> Go to a hobby shop and say you want to do pattern.hmmm."well, there's a guy
> I used to know that did some of that, I think, not sure if he's still
> around.haven't seen him for a few years"...
>
> That's where the difference is.
>
> John
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> K factors should be rethought .. An eight point role with my Phoenix 8 is
> alot different than with my current 2 meter .. Its like flying a gift now
> days other than centering of the maneuver yet retains the same or close to
> the same k factor as many years past... Food for thought...
>>
>> Once again the current proposed pattern needs fixed or the numbers will
> dwindle by at least one nxt year.. I can promise that..
>>
>>
>> Gary
>>
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>>
>>> On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:34 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Advanced and Masters are not our entry classes and should not affect
> future participation. Those new to pattern should begin in either Sportsman
> or Intermediate depending on skill level. When a flyer feels he is ready to
> move up, he will try flying the next class in practice. If it is too
> difficult to even see a way to fly that sequence reasonably, then that pilot
> was not ready to move up and should stay in his current class another year
> (or more). We do not lose people because they stayed in their current class,
> we lose them because they moved up when not ready and find they are
> outclassed without the vision, coordination, time to practice (or name your
> reason) to be competitive. Not competitive for winning, just competitive.
>>> Both Masters and Advanced can, and probably will be, changed next year.
> Any substantial problems can be addressed then. Many have tested these
> sequences. All have have flown them successfully, if not always happily. We
> can go on and on about ugly maneuvers, difficulty levels and dislike of
> change but that happens every cycle.
>>>
>>> Just for comparison here are Advanced and Masters from 20 years ago.
> Overall both appear somewhat easier than the current sequences we are flying
> but not a lot. Total KFactors are a bit lower. Also we are flying many of
> the same maneuvers. I hope you noticed the knife edge top of the cobra in
> masters. If you go back even further you can find a two roll loop in the
> days before retracts...
>>>
>>> John Gayer
>>>
>>>
>>> <ejceefij.png><eibcgfea.png>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> database 10294 (20140821) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> database 10294 (20140821) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature
> database 10295 (20140822) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/2a5cf316/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:56:30 -0400
> From: "Scott Smith" <vze23c3q at gmail.com>
> To: <jpavlick at idseng.com>, "'General pattern discussion'"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <003e01cfbdf7$bb653e60$322fbb20$@gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Yes, you?re correct. And as I recall, that sequence was described as being the worse sequence ever developed by one of the current committee members. I assume because maneuvers were flown in the wrong direction (Loop from top (u), Top Hat (d), Double I (d), downwind Rev Shark?s Tooth?) Somewhere it must be written that rolling maneuvers are always flown downwind but I can?t seem find it.
>
>
>
> I was asking because the sequence building module I have in the scoring app does define direction for the center maneuvers and these two kicked out as suspect. I guess I just went too far with the logic.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: John Pavlick [mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:40 AM
> To: 'Scott Smith'; 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
>
>
> Scott ? wasn?t the Outside loop from the top maneuver back in the ?old? 402 sequence (around 2006) done as an ?upwind? maneuver? I can?t find any of my old call sheets but I think it was.
>
>
>
> John Pavlick
>
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>
>
>
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
>
>
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
>
>
> A couple questions on the intermediate sequence:
>
>
>
> Maneuver 6 Outside loop from the top (U) ? Would that not typically be considered a downwind maneuver?
>
>
>
> And maneuver 12 Square Loop (D) - Would that not typically be considered an upwind maneuver?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/793607a2/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/793607a2/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 07:35:12 -0400
> From: John Ford <jsf106 at gmail.com>
> To: Ron Hansen <rcpilot at wowway.com>, General pattern discussion
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Cc: 'John Pavlick' <jpavlick26 at att.net>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <B292E71E-01B0-42EE-9AA2-80E0D93C271E at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I would agree to a degree. However, even though I occasionally see a control line carrier article in MA, it never occurs to me to Google it, find their website, find their blogs, investigate the discipline, and see if it is interesting?why would I? It's probably as highly specialized as pattern in the CL world, but so few people do it, and it s so rarely witnessed by the public, that it is essentially invisible, unless you put yourself on a grail quest to get into it.
>
> I was fortunate that even though I was no longer contesting or even flying regularly for years, my 11-year-old son pointed up to my old Legend 5 in the rafters and asked me to teach him to fly it. Over the next eight years he won District Champ in Sportsman, Intermediate, and Advanced, and now always beats me in Masters.
> What sparked his interest? I don't honestly know. He was also in sports, choir, theatre, Boy Scouts, video games, and RC trucks?but still always wanted to practice pattern any chance we got.
> Other than say "yes" and feeding the monster over 6 seasons of flying pattern, I have no idea where the motivation came from.
> I can honestly say that I never once asked him if he would want to fly pattern or even fly RC.
>
> I see Joseph, Brandon, and Greyson, and I imagine the same was true for them. Somehow, it was in there until they got a green light to blast off.
>
> John
>
>
>> On Aug 22, 2014, at 3:46 AM, Ron Hansen via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>> John,
>>
>> That may have been the case pre-internet but now it isn?t that hard to find out about pattern through RC Universe and other similar sites and there is a pattern article in Model Aviation every other month. I do thing that having a pattern article in Model Aviation every other month is a bit disappointing. The real problem is all of the above. There isn?t one or two smoking guns but rather many such as : (1) pattern visibility (which is what you said), (2) wow factor (IMAC heli), (3) pattern requires a lot of practice, (4) competition is intimidating, (5) pattern planes aren?t cheap, (6) traveling to contests aren?t cheap and I?m sure there are others that I?m missing.
>>
>> Quite frankly I?m fairly happy with the turnout in D4. We normally get 20+ and we get 25+ and closer to 30 when we team with D5 which is a real treat. The problem D4/D5 may have is that the diehards are getting older. Heck I?m 47 and I?m on the young side of the crowd. There are signs of hope for D4/D5 with younger pilots like Brandon and Greyson. If they don?t meet girls there is a chance that they will attract other younger pilots and the cycle will continue. I find that the club members I run into just don?t see the attraction of pattern. They really don?t care to learn to fly a nice straight slow roll or 4-pt roll. They want to hover and yank the sticks around. Watching pattern is like watching paint dry unfortunately. The real attraction of pattern is learning how to battle the elements and put that plane exactly where you want it time and time again no matter what the conditions. Most AMA members could care less about that.
>>
>> I think ?a? solution but certainly not the only one is to continue to attract the younger crowd like Mike Mueller did with Brandon and Bill Pritchett did with Greyson and have them attract some of their friends.
>>
>> How many pattern dads are there out there, that weren?t able for whatever reason to get their sons or daughters hooked on our sport? That right there says a lot.
>>
>> Ron
>>
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 1:28 AM
>> To: 'General pattern discussion'
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>>
>> Yes. This is painfully true. I only got involved in Pattern through a
>> strange sequence of events: I learned to fly right before turnaround had
>> started. I flew Pre-Novice and Novice with a Sig Kougar that I built (my
>> second big R/C airplane). I was just a 15-year old kid at the time. Then I
>> discovered cars and girls. Time passed... When I started flying again I
>> decided that I still wanted to fly Pattern. After asking at 3 local hobby
>> shops I couldn't find ANY information about Pattern contests in the area.
>> Then one day, someone in my local club told me about a "Pattern Primer"
>> contest in Massachusetts. I think he found out about it when he was at a fun
>> fly or something. Since there was NO Pattern activity in my home state of
>> Connecticut I planned on building a "real" Pattern plane and then driving up
>> to the contest in 2 weeks in my Saturn SC-2. A week of long nights and
>> determination produced the coolest Pattern plane I ever had: a red 40-size
>> Kaos Jr. with an OS40 FSR. I trimmed it out after work one day and I thought
>> I was ready for anything. When I got to the contest I thought I was in the
>> wrong place. I didn't recognize any of the planes. The giant things that I
>> saw were not what I was expecting. Where were the Tiporares and Curares? LOL
>>
>> OK so I was a bit behind the times but the fact is I had NO IDEA what
>> Pattern was all about and I had to go looking for it. It wasn't in my face
>> every time I opened a model airplane magazine like it was back in the 70's.
>> I survived the "contest" and went on to finish out a season of 401 with the
>> little Kaos and then I picked up a used Focus 1 and a Dodge Grand Caravan so
>> I could haul the massive airplane around. I went on to win the D1 / 402
>> district championship with that airplane and I eventually went to the NATs
>> twice in the Caravan. I'm on a bit of a hiatus now because I'm in the middle
>> of launching a new startup. But I WILL return.
>>
>> THIS is why there are fewer and fewer people at Pattern contests. Aside from
>> the cost of fuel and the crummy economy the problem is really simple. It's
>> not the difficulty of the sequences or the cost of the equipment. It's not
>> the weight rule or anything like that. It's really very simple: No one knows
>> what "Pattern" is anymore. How do we fix that? That's the REAL problem.
>>
>> John Pavlick
>> Cell: 203-417-4971
>>
>>
>> Integrated Development Services
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
>> Behalf Of John Ford via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2014 8:36 AM
>> To: Whodaddy Whodaddy; General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>>
>> To my knowledge, I don't think I've heard too many (or any) pilots quit
>> pattern because it was too hard to do, or too expensive, or anything else.
>> IMAC and helicopters are at least as expensive, if not more, and the
>> classes' difficulty levels mirror our own, in my opinion.
>>
>> What makes the difference is marketing. IMAC and helis are always high
>> profile at any event, the promoters do a good job of "selling" the pilots
>> and the equipment. Hobby shops always showcase the latest or the biggest.
>> The magazine adds almost always choose IMAC or helis to promote radios,
>> batteries, or fuels.
>>
>> Back when Pattern was big and local contests had 40 pilots, the cover of the
>> magazines featured Hanno, Ivan, or Rhet, and the full-page glossy back cover
>> was of Ivan and his Summit 3, endorsing Carl Golberg widgets.
>>
>> Today, if you walk in off the street as a rank beginner and you try to
>> "find" pattern, you gotta dig deep, go far, send lots of emails, and finally
>> you might (never for sure) come across a contest flyer. Then you go to the
>> contest and you find a bunch of really nice people, willing to drown you in
>> advice and help, but you realize pretty quickly that this group of people
>> are a bit off-center.sharply focused on planes, endless trimming, practicing
>> to the exclusion of all else, and sleeping on a bed of nails at night. Above
>> all, almost nobody knows they even exist in this little hidden world of RC
>> idealism.
>>
>> Go to a hobby shop and say you want to do helicopters.same reaction as
>> walking into a ER saying you have chest pains.
>> Go to a hobby shop and say you want to do pattern.hmmm."well, there's a guy
>> I used to know that did some of that, I think, not sure if he's still
>> around.haven't seen him for a few years"...
>>
>> That's where the difference is.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On Aug 19, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Whodaddy Whodaddy via NSRCA-discussion
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>
>>> K factors should be rethought .. An eight point role with my Phoenix 8 is
>> alot different than with my current 2 meter .. Its like flying a gift now
>> days other than centering of the maneuver yet retains the same or close to
>> the same k factor as many years past... Food for thought...
>>>
>>> Once again the current proposed pattern needs fixed or the numbers will
>> dwindle by at least one nxt year.. I can promise that..
>>>
>>>
>>> Gary
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>>> On Aug 18, 2014, at 11:34 PM, John Gayer via NSRCA-discussion
>> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Advanced and Masters are not our entry classes and should not affect
>> future participation. Those new to pattern should begin in either Sportsman
>> or Intermediate depending on skill level. When a flyer feels he is ready to
>> move up, he will try flying the next class in practice. If it is too
>> difficult to even see a way to fly that sequence reasonably, then that pilot
>> was not ready to move up and should stay in his current class another year
>> (or more). We do not lose people because they stayed in their current class,
>> we lose them because they moved up when not ready and find they are
>> outclassed without the vision, coordination, time to practice (or name your
>> reason) to be competitive. Not competitive for winning, just competitive.
>>>> Both Masters and Advanced can, and probably will be, changed next year.
>> Any substantial problems can be addressed then. Many have tested these
>> sequences. All have have flown them successfully, if not always happily. We
>> can go on and on about ugly maneuvers, difficulty levels and dislike of
>> change but that happens every cycle.
>>>>
>>>> Just for comparison here are Advanced and Masters from 20 years ago.
>> Overall both appear somewhat easier than the current sequences we are flying
>> but not a lot. Total KFactors are a bit lower. Also we are flying many of
>> the same maneuvers. I hope you noticed the knife edge top of the cobra in
>> masters. If you go back even further you can find a two roll loop in the
>> days before retracts...
>>>>
>>>> John Gayer
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <ejceefij.png><eibcgfea.png>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 10294 (20140821) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 10294 (20140821) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>>
>>
>> __________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 10295 (20140822) __________
>>
>> The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.
>>
>> http://www.eset.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140822/6bfca23a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0400
> From: Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com>
> To: NSRCA Discussion List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <BLU172-W2826387F704E3ECC901C82BBD00 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Basically, there has been quite a bit of deviation from the tradition here that goes way back when performance was an issue and certain maneuvers were just done a certain direction because of that. Rolling maneuvers were always downwind, square loops for example upwind, top hat upwind, reverse Cuban 8s upwind, Cuban 8s downwind, triangle loops downwind, square horizontal eight downwind, center stalls and spins having turnaround maneuvers after them to allow the pilot to bring the aircraft in or out because of wind drift while in the stalled condition, etc.
>
> I think what has really brought about this deviation from the norm significantly more this time around is the design of recent FAI sequences which have deviated a lot from what was done in the past.
>
> Maybe we need to add more design parameters and boundaries to the sequence guide spelling out direction of flight of certain classes of maneuvers for at least through Intermediate and to some extent Advanced and a little bit in Masters. I guess you could peg the blame on me for missing this when I put the original guidelines together with the committee at that time. We do have many of the parameters which help in designing a good sequence, but I guess we may need a few more.
>
> It is probably one of the reasons why there is such heated discussion on the proposed sequences and that is partially due to the experience of the current group of people on the sequence committee which is no fault of their own. The previous committees had the advantage of having a few guys who had many many years of involvement in past committees and just maybe they should have been at the very least kept on in an advisory role. Hindsight I guess.
>
> No one is really to blame here. If anything it should be a learning experience and maybe some new parameters and boundaries need to be added to the guideline design criteria for each class.
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:56:30 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
> Yes, you?re correct. And as I recall, that sequence was described as being the worse sequence ever developed by one of the current committee members. I assume because maneuvers were flown in the wrong direction (Loop from top (u), Top Hat (d), Double I (d), downwind Rev Shark?s Tooth?) Somewhere it must be written that rolling maneuvers are always flown downwind but I can?t seem find it. I was asking because the sequence building module I have in the scoring app does define direction for the center maneuvers and these two kicked out as suspect. I guess I just went too far with the logic. From: John Pavlick [mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:40 AM
> To: 'Scott Smith'; 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences Scott ? wasn?t the Outside loop from the top maneuver back in the ?old? 402 sequence (around 2006) done as an ?upwind? maneuver? I can?t find any of my old call sheets but I think it was. John PavlickCell: 203-417-4971 Integrated Development Services From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences A couple questions on the intermediate sequence: Maneuver 6 Outside loop from the top (U) ? Would that not typically be considered a downwind maneuver? And maneuver 12 Square Loop (D) - Would that not typically be considered an upwind maneuver?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140822/f92889bf/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/f92889bf/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 12:20:11 -0400
> From: George Kennie <geobet4evr at gmail.com>
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com, John Pavlick <jpavlick26 at att.net>, General
> pattern discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID:
> <CAOG==dWgv6piz0MHmqy2aVLYg8f9e1oo-ZNoP8HPyXBN5bZa7g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I'm with you Scott
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 12:40 AM, John Pavlick via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>
>> Scott ? wasn?t the Outside loop from the top maneuver back in the ?old?
>> 402 sequence (around 2006) done as an ?upwind? maneuver? I can?t find any
>> of my old call sheets but I think it was.
>>
>>
>>
>> John Pavlick
>>
>> Cell: 203-417-4971
>>
>>
>>
>> [image: idslogo2]
>>
>> Integrated Development Services
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org]
>> *On Behalf Of *Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion
>> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36 PM
>> *To:* 'General pattern discussion'
>> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>>
>>
>>
>> A couple questions on the intermediate sequence:
>>
>>
>>
>> Maneuver 6 Outside loop from the top (U) ? Would that not typically be
>> considered a downwind maneuver?
>>
>>
>>
>> And maneuver 12 Square Loop (D) - Would that not typically be considered
>> an upwind maneuver?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140822/fcc87cf2/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/fcc87cf2/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 15:25:11 -0400
> From: lucky macy <luckymacy at hotmail.com>
> To: "nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org"
> <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> Message-ID: <BAY177-W3A698ABC39607197E5C63B1D00 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> I actually wouldn't mind if the lower classes could be made 'funner' and more challenging. I don't know why spins and snaps can't be attempted in lower classes than they currently are. Spins and snaps are at the lower level IMAC. If someone doesn't like to compete in IMAC, it's in spite of the fun knows, not because of them.
>
>
>
>
> To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 11:59:37 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
>
>
>
> Basically, there has been quite a bit of deviation from the tradition here that goes way back when performance was an issue and certain maneuvers were just done a certain direction because of that. Rolling maneuvers were always downwind, square loops for example upwind, top hat upwind, reverse Cuban 8s upwind, Cuban 8s downwind, triangle loops downwind, square horizontal eight downwind, center stalls and spins having turnaround maneuvers after them to allow the pilot to bring the aircraft in or out because of wind drift while in the stalled condition, etc.
>
> I think what has really brought about this deviation from the norm significantly more this time around is the design of recent FAI sequences which have deviated a lot from what was done in the past.
>
> Maybe we need to add more design parameters and boundaries to the sequence guide spelling out direction of flight of certain classes of maneuvers for at least through Intermediate and to some extent Advanced and a little bit in Masters. I guess you could peg the blame on me for missing this when I put the original guidelines together with the committee at that time. We do have many of the parameters which help in designing a good sequence, but I guess we may need a few more.
>
> It is probably one of the reasons why there is such heated discussion on the proposed sequences and that is partially due to the experience of the current group of people on the sequence committee which is no fault of their own. The previous committees had the advantage of having a few guys who had many many years of involvement in past committees and just maybe they should have been at the very least kept on in an advisory role. Hindsight I guess.
>
> No one is really to blame here. If anything it should be a learning experience and maybe some new parameters and boundaries need to be added to the guideline design criteria for each class.
>
>
>
> To: jpavlick at idseng.com; nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2014 06:56:30 -0400
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
> From: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes, you?re correct. And as I recall, that sequence was described as being the worse sequence ever developed by one of the current committee members. I assume because maneuvers were flown in the wrong direction (Loop from top (u), Top Hat (d), Double I (d), downwind Rev Shark?s Tooth?) Somewhere it must be written that rolling maneuvers are always flown downwind but I can?t seem find it.
>
> I was asking because the sequence building module I have in the scoring app does define direction for the center maneuvers and these two kicked out as suspect. I guess I just went too far with the logic.
>
>
>
>
> From: John Pavlick [mailto:jpavlick26 at att.net]
> Sent: Friday, August 22, 2014 12:40 AM
> To: 'Scott Smith'; 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: RE: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
> Scott ? wasn?t the Outside loop from the top maneuver back in the ?old? 402 sequence (around 2006) done as an ?upwind? maneuver? I can?t find any of my old call sheets but I think it was.
>
>
> John Pavlick
> Cell: 203-417-4971
>
>
> Integrated Development Services
>
>
>
> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Scott Smith via NSRCA-discussion
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 4:36 PM
> To: 'General pattern discussion'
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed sequences
>
> A couple questions on the intermediate sequence:
>
> Maneuver 6 Outside loop from the top (U) ? Would that not typically be considered a downwind maneuver?
>
> And maneuver 12 Square Loop (D) - Would that not typically be considered an upwind maneuver?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20140822/a8d6dadd/attachment-0001.html>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: image001.png
> Type: image/png
> Size: 735 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140822/a8d6dadd/attachment-0001.png>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of NSRCA-discussion Digest, Vol 105, Issue 16
> *************************************************
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list