[SPAM] Re: New Sequences

[Jerry Budd]

I think some of you are missing the point.

In a contest we had earlier this year there was a pretty stiff 
quartering crosswind blowing out.  On my first three flights I nailed 
the crosswind correction such that I held the plane over the poles 
with almost no variance.  When I hit the top hat I was forced 
(because there is no "option" with that maneuver) to take it either 
in or out, when in fact there was no correction needed - I was 
already on the desired line.  I wound up in a worse position (I went 
in twice and out once) as far as the line is concerned because of it.

Because I had almost perfectly held the line prior to the maneuver I 
was penalized after the wind correction maneuver by being in (or out) 
more than what was appropriate, while those who were in trouble with 
the cross wind prior to the wind correction maneuver actually 
benefited from the maneuver.

IMHO, a wind correction maneuver that forces a correction to be made 
is not a very good wind correction maneuver.

Eric's right, there should be an option for any wind correction 
maneuver that allows the pilot who doesn't need (or want) the 
correction to not make it.

Thx, Jerry


>  > It's also not really a top hat. More of a square loop with 1/2 rolls on
>the verticals.
>
>And not NEARLY as difficult in my opinion. Part of what makes the Top Hat
>difficult *is* the cross box component and how one has to deal with wind
>corrections. Cross box with a head wind is tricky, going straight into the
>wind would be much easier.
>
>To some degree I feel this falls under the category of "he who can do it
>best scores best".  SURE it's hard, but it separates the good pilots from
>the great pilots. After all, it's called MASTERS.
>
>Keith Black
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Verne Koester" <verne at twmi.rr.com>
>To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences
>
>
>>  Troy,
>>  It has possibilities. However, the inline version (1/2 rolls) leaves you
>>  inverted if you started upright and vice-versa. It's also not really a top
>>  hat. More of a square loop with 1/2 rolls on the verticals. Still, it
>could
>>  work as an option with the traditional crossbox, 1/4 roll top hat.
>>
>>  Man, that's giving me a headache. Hittin the rack so I can leave for
>Muncie
>>  in the morning.....
>>
>>  Verne
>>
>>
>>  ----- Original Message -----
>>  From: "Troy A. Newman" <troy_newman at msn.com>
>>  To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>>  Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 11:44 PM
>>  Subject: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences
>>
>>
>>  >a top hat with options type of thing?
>>  >
>>  > do it inline flat an inverted at the top
>>  > ????
>>  >
>>  >
>>  > Troy
>>  > ----- Original Message -----
>>  > From: "Grow Pattern" <pattern4u at comcast.net>
>>  > To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
>>  > Sent: Thursday, June 09, 2005 8:32 PM
>>  > Subject: Re: New Sequences
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >> How about if all "cross-box" type maneuvers were designed with
>"in-line"
>>  >> options, then we meet correction and no-correction required needs. The
>>  >> turnaround top-hat is a bit of an anomaly in that  it forces you in or
>>  >> out. The humpty with options is much more versatile and pilot friendly.
>>  >>
>>  >> Regards,
>>  >>
>  > >> Eric.

-- 
___________
Jerry Budd
Budd Engineering
(661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax
(661) 435-0358 Cell Phone
mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com
http://www.buddengineering.com
=================================================
To access the email archives for this list, go to
http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/
To be removed from this list, go to http://www.nsrca.org/discussionA.htm
and follow the instructions.

List members email returned for mailbox full will be removed from the list.