Friday Night Masters' Question

[jim ivey]

Matt
 I understand the way the rolls are viewed now. And it makes sense if you call it a hesitation between 2, 1/4 rolls.
 I have flown this way the whole time but never tried to reason it like this.
 Thanks
 Jim Ivey

----- Original Message -----
From: Rcmaster199 at aol.com
Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 11:43 PM
To: discussion at nsrca.org
Subject: Re: Friday Night Masters' Question

In a message dated 6/20/2003 10:11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rcaerobob at cox.net writes:



Subj:Re: Friday Night Masters' Question  
Date:6/20/2003 10:11:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:rcaerobob at cox.net
Reply-to:discussion at nsrca.org
To:discussion at nsrca.org
Sent from the Internet  



Great info, and validates what I thought...
    On the Cuban Eight, however, that's a hair-splitter....because the transition from point to point occupies some distance based on the speed of the roll, and the velocity of the airplane....sooooo....ya better have REALLY, REALLY good eyes to distinguish that....or am I missing something new...??

Bob Pastorello, Oklahoma
NSRCA 199, IMAC 1320, AMA 46373
rcaerobob at cox.net
www.rcaerobats.net




No I don't think you are missing it. Remember that roll rate must be the same in these situations so technically the 1/4 rolling elements should use up the same amount of sky (assuming constant model speed--on a downward diagonal, that is a good assumption).

The hesitation between the roll elements only needs to be present.  
I think the point is, establish the 45 , 1/4 roll befiore center and hold it past center, then 1/4 roll again, and re-establish the 45, then pitch.

I do think we have made the maneuver alot more difficult than it is.  

matt  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20030621/23c604f3/attachment.html