<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv=content-type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.23588"></HEAD>
<BODY dir=auto bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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outdated equipment and modern current equipment the differences are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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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. </FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial>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. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000ff size=2 face=Arial> Del </FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">Chuck Hochhalter via
NSRCA-discussion</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=plane.gary@cox.net
href="mailto:plane.gary@cox.net">Gary Switala</A> ; <A
title=nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">General pattern discussion</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, July 28, 2014 9:20 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [NSRCA-discussion] 2015
proposed Advanced maneuvers</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>I disagree with average not being good enough to compete with. I have
flown and competed successfully with avg equipment.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>One can also purchased very good used equipment from top pilots that has
"better than avg" stuff in it often.</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>Chuck<BR><BR>Sent from my iPhone</DIV>
<DIV><BR>On Jul 27, 2014, at 6:39 PM, Gary Switala via NSRCA-discussion <<A
href="mailto:nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">nsrca-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV>
<META name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 14 (filtered medium)">
<STYLE>@font-face {
font-family: Calibri;
}
@page WordSection1 {size: 8.5in 11.0in; margin: 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in; }
P.MsoNormal {
LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
LI.MsoNormal {
LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
DIV.MsoNormal {
LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; FONT-SIZE: 11pt
}
A:link {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlink {
COLOR: blue; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
A:visited {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {
COLOR: purple; TEXT-DECORATION: underline; mso-style-priority: 99
}
SPAN.EmailStyle17 {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; COLOR: windowtext; mso-style-type: personal-compose
}
.MsoChpDefault {
FONT-FAMILY: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-style-type: export-only
}
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><O:P></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal> 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.<O:P></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal>Caution<O:P></O:P></P>
<P class=MsoNormal><O:P></O:P></P></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BLOCKQUOTE type="cite">
<DIV><SPAN>_______________________________________________</SPAN><BR><SPAN>NSRCA-discussion
mailing list</SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="mailto:NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org">NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org</A></SPAN><BR><SPAN><A
href="http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion">http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</A></SPAN></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>NSRCA-discussion
mailing
list<BR>NSRCA-discussion@lists.nsrca.org<BR>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion</BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>