[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers

Mon Jul 28 10:42:28 AKDT 2014

No doubt.  I suspect the "boys" did better than the "men" just like they do
now, something about youth, vision, reflexes and flexibility of mind :-)

Peter+

On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

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

-- 
Director, Fixed Wing Flight Training
Santa Clara County Model Aircraft Skypark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140728/93b980e7/attachment.html>