<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
When Gyros were legal at the TOC competitions most competitors chose
not to use them. Not only did the added complexity bring its own
failures but most of the successful pilots felt they wanted absolute
control.<br>
<br>
The general consensus in the past has been that contest is about
pilots and not technology. The extreme view has led to Senior
Pattern and Ballistic Pattern, etc. While those ideas have been
good, they failed to gain enough popularity to attract enough
contestants to form a self sustaining critical mass.<br>
<br>
I believe the current competitors prefer to keep things as they are
and adhere to FAI rules. Those who feel otherwise have departed to
pursue other challenges. <br>
<br>
There have been amazing strides the availability and the costs of
microcomputers in the last few years. One example is the Arduino
system. Perhaps the off the shelf stuff is too big & too heavy,
but it is only a little more expensive to get what you want in a
tiny package. All for less than the price of one good servo!<br>
<br>
I suspect that a properly programmed onboard computer might make an
old Focus competitive with today's equipment at a fraction of the
cost. <br>
<br>
Current Precision Aerobatics is not yet a One-Design contest but the
rules have left very few choices in aircraft: Electric/fuel, Single
wing/multi wing . That is OK because it has been the choices made
by those interested enough to keep the sport alive.<br>
<br>
I don't consider myself a has - been, I am a never - was, but no one
ever had more fun than me!<br>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/15/2012 6:57 AM, Ron Hansen wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:000801cd9330$d72ce790$8586b6b0$@wowway.com"
type="cite">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
        {font-family:SimSun;
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
        {font-family:SimSun;
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
        {font-family:"\@SimSun";
        panose-1:2 1 6 0 3 1 1 1 1 1;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">At last weekend’s contest I asked several
pretty experienced judges whether a gyro that told a pilot
whether his wings were level and/or his nose was pitching down
was legal in pattern. I know the rules say gyros that
automatically adjust for pitch and yaw are illegal. I also
believe any other device that tells the pilot the orientation
of the plane so that the pilot can manually adjust is also not
in the spirit of the sport.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">I got some interesting responses.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">In my opinion this type of feedback has
been technically feasible for many years. It may not have
been through direct communication between the receiver and the
transmitter but it was certainly doable through a tone in an
ear piece or similar feedback mechanism. I’m surprised the
rules never anticipated this. Why did we have to wait for
telemetry capable radios?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<br>
__________ Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus
signature database 7481 (20120915) __________<br>
<br>
The message was checked by ESET Smart Security.<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://www.eset.com">http://www.eset.com</a><br>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
John Ferrell W8CCW
“During times of universal deceit,
Telling the TRUTH becomes a revolutionary act”
George Orwell
</pre>
</body>
</html>