[NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

Mon Jul 17 17:00:04 AKDT 2017

60 aged?  YGTBKM.  My son is almost that old.

Curt

  _____  

From: NSRCA-discussion [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On
Behalf Of Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 4:07 PM
To: Derek Koopowitz; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences

To that I have to respond. A vast majority of Masters pilots are in the same
category if you think 59 going on 60 is aged. LOL.

  _____  

From: Derek Koopowitz <derekkoopowitz at gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 1:59 PM
To: Joe Lachowski; General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences 

Age!!!

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 17, 2017, at 1:42 PM, Joe Lachowski via NSRCA-discussion
<nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org> wrote:

There are two more things we need to seriously consider with these
sequences. Judgeability of course and something no one ever talks about,
ability to memorize a sequence and retain it. Not all of us have a caller
readily available when practicing. The current sequence bit me twice so far
this contest season. I actually started to swap  two maneuvers out of
sequence even with a caller. Took my 0's and throw away round. I now make
sure my caller reinforces that part of the sequence when calling for me.  In
all my years of flying pattern this has never ever happened to me before. My
memory isn't bad. I usually have  a new sequence or previous seasons
sequence down in less than two practice sessions at the beginning of every
season.

  _____  

From: Atwood, Mark <atwoodm at paragon-inc.com>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 11:43 AM
To: Joe Lachowski
Cc: General pattern discussion
Subject: Re: New sequences 

In reply I'll admit I did not evaluate it against any guideline criteria.  I
only flew it for "feel" and admittedly, I'm somewhat proud to say I've flown
enough F and Unknown sequences now that it didn't seem very unusual.   So
your critique there is likely valid.  Given that all the maneuvers were
flyable with little more than calling the primary maneuver name along with
the individual elements, real time, I'm hard pressed to call them
"fabricated garbage", as I think that needlessly insults the people that
worked hard, with good intent, to put these together. 

I do fly a fairly low drag, power efficient setup, so that point is valid.

I will also agree that our constant evolution and increasing difficulty of
sequences has generally stagnated class advancement.  When I was moving up,
the classes never changed.  So once you were proficient in a class, the only
new challenge was to move up.  Now, with new classes every 2 years, even if
the difficulty is the same, you can stay put and still feel challenged
learning something new.

-M

MARK ATWOOD

o.  (440) 229-2502

c.  (216) 316-2489

e.   <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.

5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124

 <http://www.paragon-inc.com/> www.paragon-inc.com

 <http://www.paragon-inc.com/> 

Powering The Digital Experience

On Jul 17, 2017, at 2:30 PM, Joe Lachowski <jlachow at hotmail.com> wrote:

There are still too many new maneuvers introduced to the eligible maneuvers
list. Only a couple should be introduced each rules cycle if necessary. That
was part of the intent of the guide. Battery consumption is too high with
the low drag plane and motor combination that you use Mark in comparison to
others. I'm assuming this is the sequence that is on the NSRCA site.

A few of the maneuvers are just fabricated garbage. When the guide was put
together it was done to keep getting carried away with this stuff and adding
a boat load of  "Oh, this would be cool to do" type maneuvers which have
already infiltrated FAI. There is a lot of stupidity designed into the
sequence. 

A fellow Masters pilot tried to fly  some of this this weekend and concluded
it was a bunch of crap, ripped it up and threw it into the garbage.

I had an Advanced pilot fly the new sequence for Advanced this weekend also.
The Cobra with snap may be an issue.

There are also a lot of 3/4 rolls in the sequence that an Advanced pilot
will have to figure out which way to roll. This may be an information
overload requirement that might be overcome by a lot more practice than
typically required. You only have some much time available to practice. The
designers did not do a thorough analysis of the roll elements.

I firmly believe we need to dumb down on Masters. The current one is already
difficult and requires  more practice time than I would care to put into
flying pattern. The fun is starting to dissipate for this flyer and I'm
retired.

Not everyone can get out several evenings during the week and the weekend to
practice. I'm thinking of the 95% not the top 5% and I'm a middle of the
road Masters pilot. I have also seen decline in Masters attendance on the
local level. Based on what I see so far, I will either pack it in or
reluctantly drop to Advanced which has crept ever closer towards being a
Masters sequence. This is the first time I have seen so much controversy
over one sequence.  Start fresh. There is still time to form a new committee
hopefully with some people who previously served and get this thing right.
There is still plenty of time to get it right by December 31st. Heck I could
do it all on my own and come up with something more sane that what has been
proposed or thrown out in this discussion list! 

  _____  

From: NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org> on behalf
of Atwood, Mark via NSRCA-discussion <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, July 17, 2017 8:09 AM
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] New sequences 

Hey All, 

I was able to fly both the proposed Masters and Advanced sequences this
weekend with Chuck Edwards.  All in all good, with a few thoughts.

Masters -  

I like it. Flows reasonably well.  Some fun challenges, but nothing
daunting.  The two rolls opposite is easily the prettiest maneuver in the
schedule, and it will separate anyone not comfortable rolling both ways.  

One concern - The only sticky maneuver I thought is the 1 1/4, KE flight, 1
1/4.   It's simply too long to make look pretty, and if it's a strong head
wind, will really look like crap.  You're basically trying to fit 2 1/2
rolls AND sustained KE flight on a downwind leg and stay in the box, thus
forcing somewhat rapid rolls which simply look rushed.  

I would strongly suggest changing it to 3/4 roll, KE, 3/4 roll.   Same
difficulty really, but a full roll shorter and thus allows for a more
graceful, controlled roll rate.

Total Mah draw in modest wind (7-9kt cross) was 3580mah  without paying
particular attention to throttle management, given that it was the first
time through the sequence.  Quite a bit less time and power than the current
schedule.

Advanced.  

It's also nice, with one major concern.  The Cobra.  It's not as
conventional as I think is expected, and I feel it's too much for an
advanced flyer just learning to snap their airplane (my opinion).  You're
already a bit rushed going into is, and you're pushing in from Inverted.  No
biggie.  Half roll up, over the top and back down on a 45.  THEN you have a
single snap on the 45 deg DOWN line.  

I can tell you from personal experience and a re-kitted Spark (St.
Clairsville flying F-11 with a 1 1/2 snap down on the cobra) that a snap
like this WILL crash an airplane.  You're heading down, not all that high to
begin with, and if you badly miss the snap and lose your orientation, you're
likely on low throttle and low airspeed and will proceed to stall/snap it
into the ground in your attempt to recover.    I'd much rather see a snap on
the UP leg of the cobra.  It would still be rushed, but FAR more airplane
and pilot friendly.  

Other than that, is has all the traditional challenges.     Power was very
low as I flew the schedule with only 2800mah (also a 7-9kt crosswind).  

My $0.02 worth with 1 time through Advanced and twice through Masters.  So
limited testing.  Your mileage may vary.

Hope to see a bunch of you in Arkansas!   

-Mark
MARK ATWOOD
o.  (440) 229-2502
c.  (216) 316-2489
e.   <mailto:atwoodm at paragon-inc.com> atwoodm at paragon-inc.com

Paragon Consulting, Inc.
5900 Landerbrook Drive, Suite 205, Cleveland Ohio, 44124
 <http://www.paragon-inc.com/> www.paragon-inc.com

_______________________________________________
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/20170718/d87892ae/attachment.html>