Earl's excellent observations

[Don Ramsey]

The landing sequence also requires that the 180 degree turn to downwind be
in the aerobatic zone.

Don

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Ferrell" <johnferrell at earthlink.net>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Earl's excellent observations


> I can post your drawings in my personal web space, just send me a copy.
>
> Bill Glaze pointed out to me that the FAI landing sequence requires that
> once you begin your descent to landing, you can never gain any altitude
> according to the book. There would have been a lot of unhappy finalists if
> this was enforced at Muncie. The only available penalty is a zero...
>
> John Ferrell
> http://DixieNC.US
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Dean Pappas" <d.pappas at kodeos.com>
> To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 1:25 PM
> Subject: Earl's excellent observations
>
>
> Hello All,
> wifferdil ... I just call 'em twinkle-rolls!
> What I would like to see is for our team members to have two new arrows in
> their quiver at the next Worlds.
> One is a real snap that comes out on heading or is quickly corrected.
(hint:
> the more deeply the airplane is stalled in the initial break, the less
lift
> is available for heading loss.) That's right, a half loaf is worse than
none
> at all.
> The other is a rolling circle that will not violate either the judges'
> eyesight or a reasonable interpretation of the rule book as to distance.
The
> book does not specifically treat this maneuver class differently, so the
150
> good/175 downgrade/200 severe downgrade rule obviously still applies. At
> least it will when the Worlds' judges arbitrarily decide to start
enforcing
> it! Meanwhile, it's still in the book.
> My concern is that without at least these two weapons in their arsenal,
the
> team will be set up to be "caught-out" as in '87. What do I mean? In '85
> everyone at the Worlds flew at 200 ~250m. At the European Championship in
> '86 the same was true, and Frack, Koger and I think Ivan were there as
guest
> participants. Sometime between then and Avignon in '87, a group of judges
> agreed that the book was not being upheld, and started doing so. As a
> result, we were caught-out, without even the right prop in the flight-box
to
> fly at the necessary speeds. Unfair? No! It was finally done by the book.
> We risk the same issue with snaps and rolling circles. Everyone has been
> getting away with murder on the snaps, at recent Worlds, and one day the
> hammer is bound to drop. Besides, common sense says that the rollers are
too
> stinkin' big.
> Other observations: I saw one square that was square in 4 rounds of the
best
> 8 fliers in the land. Most ranged from 20% to 50% wide, especially in the
> vertical 8s. Oh yes the square square belonged to Quique's 1st known
> compulsory.
> Everybody (and I mean everybody) overlapped the entry and exit lines to
the
> hourglass with 2 of 4 in F05. It's a shame this list doesn't accept
> attachments, as I'd draw up a PDF showing the wrong shape that all the
> finalists "perfected". I'm curious as to what happened here. I don't think
> that it's an issue of education ... Has everyone migrated to a wrong shape
> that the judges (both local and National) are accepting?
> Ducking for cover,
> Dean Pappas
>
>
> Dean Pappas
> Sr. Design Engineer
> Kodeos Communications
> 111 Corporate Blvd.
> South Plainfield, N.J. 07080
> (908) 222-7817 phone
> (908) 222-2392 fax
> d.pappas at kodeos.com
>
> ============# To be removed from this list, go to
> http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>
>
> =====================================
> # To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
> and follow the instructions.
>

=====================================
# To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.