[SPAM] Re: New Sequences
Keith Black
tkeithb at comcast.net
Sun Jun 12 14:29:36 AKDT 2005
Jerry,
Unfortunately this year I'm not going to NATS, I want to take the family
(wife and 4 kids) west for a vacation so I'm sacrificing NATS to do so. But
next year I plan to be at NATS at which time you can kick my butt (flying
that is) and we can yack it up over a few beers! :-)
It's fun talking about this stuff. Glad to see your taking my comments as
simple point-counter-point conversation and not in a negative way.
Sometimes it's hard to tell what someone's attitude is via email.
Conversation over beers is much better!
Keith
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences
> Keith,
>
> I fully understand what you are saying. I just don't think I should
> be downgraded for having held my line almost perfectly simply because
> the next maneuver is a non-option wind correction maneuver.
> "Practic[ing] the heck out of it and plan[ing] ahead in the sequence
> so I[t] can be positioned correctly" doesn't solve the problem, it's
> a compromise work-around to the problem. Adjusting your distance to
> allow for exiting the top hat on line means that you had to
> compromise your entry line on the previous maneuver(s) and there
> would be a downgrade somewhere. Should a pilot have to intentionally
> fly a maneuver incorrectly in order to avoid a downgrade in a
> subsequent maneuver? One would hope not, but that is exactly what is
> happening in the new Masters pattern whenever there is a crosswind
> component present.
>
> WRT #1 below - I did win, but that isn't why I'm voicing my opinion on
this.
>
> WRT #2 below - Everyone else was already out (due to the crosswind
> having blown them out) and used the Top Hat to reestablish their
> position. I was right over the poles entering the Top Hat and had no
> where to go with it. It was a strong crosswind so taking it in left
> me in too close and taking it out left me way out. There was no way
> to do the Top Hat correctly and not be penalized somewhere, either in
> having the Top Hat look odd because I had to cut the top line so
> short, or being off line doing the next maneuver (reverse knife edge).
>
> I stand by my statement. A wind correction maneuver that forces a
> correction to be made is not a very good wind correction maneuver.
>
> Having a compromised maneuver in a sequence means that it isn't
> possible to perform the sequence correctly. The entire sequence is
> compromised and that just doesn't seem acceptable to me. We should
> expect (and demand) better.
>
> Are you going to the Nats? If so, perhaps we should discuss this
> over many beers? ;-) Hey, even Verne could join us on this one!
>
> Thx, Jerry
>
>
> >Jerry, I'm not missing your point, I understand exactly what you're
saying.
> >Truth is I hate the top hat for the very same reason, however, rather
than
> >considering removing it my attitude is to practice the heck out of it and
> >plan ahead in the sequence so I can be positioned correctly. If it's
REALLY
> >hard and takes extra preparation and I can be smarter than the other
fliers
> >then I'll win. As to those who benefit from it by being out of position
> >there's two ways of looking at that. 1) If they're having such trouble
> >staying in position then your overall flight should easily beat them, 2)
If
> >they've drifted in just prior to the Top Hat... maybe they're not out of
> >position, maybe they planned ahead...?
> >
> >Keith Black
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
> >To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
> >Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 2:14 AM
> >Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: New Sequences
> >
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
> >
> >=================================================
> >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.
>
>
> --
> ___________
> 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.
>
=================================================
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.
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list