[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers

Dale Olstinske sanjosedale at gmail.com
Mon Jul 28 11:48:36 AKDT 2014


Gary,

We can't possibly create sequences which everyone likes. Clearly we know 
which camp you are in :)

I don't see how the proposed sequence is more demanding on equipment 
than current, can you quantify that?
You make a good point about the K Factors, that will be revisited.
When you say "relationship to proceeding and succeeding maneuvers are 
not taken into account" I can assure you that is not the case. The 
committee debated every maneuver in each sequence and how well the fit 
with the next. Can you be more specific about "As in # 5 to #6 and #9 to 
#10 to #11"
I'm also wondering what you mean by the hour glass being butchered? This 
maneuver is straight form the catalog and of all the variations, is the 
easiest, starting at the middle, top first with both loops being inside.

Not trying to be defensive, just need to understand.

Thanks,

Dale



------ Original Message ------
From: "Gary Switala via NSRCA-discussion" 
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: 7/27/2014 4:39:02 PM
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers

>
>
>
>
>     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
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140728/593e04dd/attachment.html>


More information about the NSRCA-discussion mailing list