[NSRCA-discussion] Fwd: 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers

[Jim Woodward]

Don't forget the YS 170 is still a powerhouse!  Proved that this weekend, 90+ temps in Miami, Aries 07 and Asyluer both older but very capable planes for F3A. 

Thank You,
Jim

Sent from my iPhone (please forgive any spelling errors)

> On Jul 29, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: Chuck Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com>
>> Date: July 28, 2014, 5:35:47 PM CDT
>> To: Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com>
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers
>> 
>> Del, absolutely spot on. I appreciate and agree with you... Almost ;) 
>> 
>> There are options all the way to the masters class that are very affordable and adequate. 
>> 
>> Motors- dualsky, scorpion, himax
>> 
>> Batts- sky lipo, hobby people, g force 
>> 
>> Controller- sky fun, castle (not badly priced), jeti advance
>> 
>> Servos- sport servos from jr are adequate
>> 
>> Airframe- vanquish, monolog, used airframe, older airframe. Build a kit from insightrc.
>> 
>>  I contend any airframe less than 8 yes ago will fly the masters pattern , setup is KEY TO being prepared. The integrated roll at the top of a loop can easily be flown with any airframe with moderate practice. So little rudder if any is required to accomplish this. Timing and an understanding of the maneuver makes this easier. Gravity does most of the work and timing does the rest.
>> 
>> Do more modern airframes make things easier yes, but at times there is a price.... BIG fuse sides roll easily, but they are more work in the wind. Small fuses cut like a knife but require better knowledge of rudder and proper application. 
>> 
>> All being said, if you don't know your plane intimately, you will struggle and hate certain maneuvers or conditions.
>> 
>> I want to encourage everyone in advanced and masters to embrace the challenge and get help if you need it from other pilots that are better than you. We all strive for tens... Sometimes we succeed , sometimes we fail, but we accept the challenge and practice with a goal.
>> 
>> Chuck
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>>> On Jul 28, 2014, at 5:19 PM, "Del R" <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Not meaning this comment to attack or to be condescending to anyone but, after many years of competing with both outdated equipment and modern current equipment the differences are DRAMATIC.  Now with that being said everyone average may be different but when more complex maneuvers are added to the schedule you need to have the equipment that will fly it competently. If you are campaigning a 70 inches 6# plane and flying masters, I defy the best at the contest to beat someone in the master or FAI class with that plane if there are equally competent pilots.. equipment does matter of course..  You need light planes and power to do many of the maneuvers. If you want them done well you have to be practiced and have adequate equipment.. A friend for years campaigned less than cutting edge equipment and didn't realize how badly he was beating himself that no amount of practice would overcome.. Then one day he flew a currently campaigned model and found out the complication factor dropped by a factor of 2 or 3.. Why.. The plane was designed for flying those maneuvers and presenting them well with less input from the pilot.. Now his workload dropped dramatically and he could stay ahead of the model and make corrections 3 times easier because the workload was much less.. So if you believe the lies that campaigning a lesser model still makes you competitive you really need to put your money where your mouth is. 
>>>  
>>> Please do not take this as a personal attack on you Chuck.. My reply to this thread is not directed at you..  There are more than a couple who have made similar claims over the years and that lie is accepted by pilots who don't know any better and believe what higher class competitors share with them.. Yes you can still fly an Ugly stick in the beginning class and do well if you are a good pilot and know how to present the maneuvers.. But realize if someone shows up with a full blown 2 meter pattern ship adequately powered but don't know how to present the maneuvers the stick will win.. On the other hand a stick will have a big disadvantage in the wind and against a skillful pilot.  
>>>  
>>> So yes Chuck you are correct in used  equipment from top pilots is normally better than average. It is a competitive sport and by its very nature if you want to be equally competitive you have to better than average equipment if your practice window is limited d/t time constraints,weather, etc. you want to be as competitive as your budget can accommodate.
>>>  
>>>     Del
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion
>>> To: Gary Switala ; General pattern discussion
>>> Sent: Monday, July 28, 2014 9:20 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers
>>> 
>>> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140729/8ab7926d/attachment.html>