[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers

[Chuck Hochhalter]

Heck ya.... Separated the boy and the men for sure.

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 28, 2014, at 1:27 PM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Impressive. 
> I can only imagine doing those with slow servos, heavy planes, and no rates or mixes.
> 
> John
> 
> 
> On Jul 28, 2014, at 2:08 PM, "Jeff and Claire" <jeffclaire at cableone.net> wrote:
> 
>> Check out the attached scan from American Aircraft Modeler 1969-
>> 
>> 45 years ago there was a rolling circle in Class B pattern. Class C included that plus a 2-roll loop. 
>> 
>> The '69 Nats five finalists and their equipment:
>> 
>> Leonard: Taper-wing Kwik-Fli IV, Veco 61 w/muffler
>> 
>> Whitely; Lanier built Daddy Rabbit, Veco 61 w/muffler
>> 
>> Chidgey, Lanier built Citron III ,  SuperTigre 61
>> 
>> Bonetti, TroubleMaker, Webra 61 (early cross-flow)
>> 
>> Edwards, New Orleanian, Veco 61
>> 
>> Some had retracts, but this was well before Schnurle porting and pipes. 
>> 
>> Point is, nothing on their equipment list comes even close to something like a Vanquish with a Himax motor.  I'm late to the party still learning Intermediate skills. Wish I were in Masters and ready  to learn integrated stuff.
>> 
>> Jeff Worsham
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jas via NSRCA-discussion
>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:45 AM
>> To: John Ford; General pattern discussion
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers
>>  
>> 
>> Having flown the Integral past it's 'F3A' prime, it is easily still an F3A capable plane, even through F. Sure it is small by today's standards, it'll do any of the F stuff with ease. 
>> 
>> When I get back to the field I'll go through the new patterns again with a Vanquish and a 125 MythoS for the guys that are flying Advanced (I am curious how the planes will do in Masters too) but there isn't anything in either sequence that (IMO) can't be done. Even the KE corner should be fine with both planes.
>> 
>> And Zach (2nd in Intermediate) found a great deal on a RTF Griffon at the Nats. I couldn't convince him that his Vanquish was fine through Masters (even F3A P)... must not be cool enough lol.
>> 
>> Sent from my iP
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 10:30 AM, John Ford via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Curious about what "average" equipment might be. 
>> Other than an exceptionally beaten, old, poorly-maintained, dusty, wrinkled, barely airworthy plane that one might find used, is it really possible to buy anything that isn't currently competitive? 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Would a venerable 9-year-old Integral or Abbra, with an original 8-year-old Pletty EVO, an APC prop, a Castle 80HV-V1 and a Zippy 20C battery qualify as an "average" plane nowadays?…but not still be able to get through the new Advanced in the hands of a pilot who can only practice one day a week?
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> I can't see how it couldn't…
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> John
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 9:20 AM, Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I disagree with average not being good enough to compete with. I have flown and competed successfully with avg equipment.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> One can also purchased very good used equipment from top pilots that has "better than avg" stuff in it often.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> 
>> On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Gary Switala via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>>     My comments on the new  Advance schedule. I have 20 + flights on it with both other pattern guys and club members observing. The comments of the club members are:  “Why is everything upside down?“; “ makes no sense to me“; from the pattern guys  “ugly, damn ugly”;  and “WTF.”  From the flights I have put in I see that it’s not for the average Advanced flyer with an average plane with an average motor with an average battery set and with an average ESC . So looks like more $$$$ needs to be spent.  Some of the maneuvers are bad enough, but the way they are arranged the true difficulty in their relationship to proceeding and succeeding maneuvers are not taken into account.  As in # 5 to #6 and #9 to #10 to #11. I also do not understand why the figure 9 is only a K Factor of 1?? And why is the Shark’s tooth given the same K as the one we’re doing now. The new proposed one is an entirely different maneuver and considerably more difficult as proposed.  This is a descending maneuver at 45 degs. doing  2/2 reverse rolls  trying to slow the model down and hold a straight line and have enough speed and power to get through the outside Avalanche.  I also take exception with the way the Hourglass has been butchered. It would make more sense replacing it with the Standing Eight starting in the center with options as it would add some of the missing gracefulness needed.
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> Caution
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> <AAM 2-69_a.jpg>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140728/80b2056c/attachment.html>