[NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers

[Vicente Bortone]

That Focus 1 was my plane back in 2001. I was amazed see that engine
running that well after so many years and flights. I agree John and we
always concluded that pattern is about practice, practice and more
practice.

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014, James Hiller via NSRCA-discussion <
nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

> Right on!
>
> Jim
>
>
>
> *From:* NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org');>]
> *On Behalf Of *John Ford via NSRCA-discussion
> *Sent:* Tuesday, July 29, 2014 4:47 AM
> *To:* Chuck Hochhalter; General pattern discussion
> *Subject:* Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015 proposed Advanced maneuvers
>
>
>
> I would agree with Chuck, especially on the "know your plane" part.
>
>
>
> So much of the coaching I've given to pattern fliers over the years
> involves flying the plane intensely…which means over and over again…with
> the vast majority of flights in a given month on the pattern plane. It
> really is a discipline sport and not much of it can be "part-time".  Often,
> I will spend whole weekends just flying past myself doing rolls,
> knife-edge, loops, snaps, or verticals…just to remind myself how the plane
> handles…it's amazing how we forget stuff or teach ourselves bad habits by
> flying only the straight pattern at contests.
>
>
>
> I know a few good pilots that bring four planes to the field and fly the
> pattern plane only one flight at the end of the day when the wind dies, and
> then say that they aren't attending the next pattern contest AT THEIR FIELD
> because "patterns are way too difficult".
>
>
>
> I know a gentleman who once showed up at the field only three years ago,
> with a old beat-up wrinkled Focus running a brown-tarnished OS 2-stroke
> under a cracked cowling. He paid only a few hundred for the package, but he
> so much wanted to win a contest that he flew the heck outta that plane, and
> flew nothing else. We coached him, helped him set up his plane, and guess
> what…he placed and then won a contest. He wasn't ashamed of his plane, and
> he relied on himself…not on the plane…to win.
>
>
>
> I'm sorry, but yes, I've seen lots of people buy 70- or 110-sized pattern
> planes "because they are cheaper", but I seldom remember seeing anyone who
> showed up at a contest saying that their 70-sized plane is the ONLY plane
> they own/fly, or the ONLY plane they can afford. If they did (and I
> remember one such person), they usually had their thumbs wired to their
> hearts and out-flew everyone else.
>
> Usually, however, the "cheaper" 70-sized pattern plane sits next to the
> 110-inch Extra 300 gasser in the trailer or sits next to a dozen other
> sport planes and three radios in the basement.
>
>
>
> I hear the concerns, but I think choices can and need to be made. I
> personally own only one plane, fly it 100% of the time, what little time I
> have…and my worst fear is that the pattern never changes or gets easier.
> That will be my cue to try scale or jets.
>
>
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jul 29, 2014, at 5:58 AM, Chuck Hochhalter via NSRCA-discussion <
> nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org');>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From:* Chuck Hochhalter <cahochhalter at yahoo.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','cahochhalter at yahoo.com');>>
> *Date:* July 28, 2014, 5:35:47 PM CDT
> *To:* Del R <drykert2 at rochester.rr.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org');>
>
> *To:* Gary Switala <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','plane.gary at cox.net');> ; General
> pattern discussion
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org');>
>
> *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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org');>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org');>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org');>
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
>
>


-- 
Vicente "Vince" Bortone
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20140729/e8b50e30/attachment.html>