[SPAM] Re: New Sequences
David Lockhart
DaveL322 at comcast.net
Sun Jun 12 18:45:54 AKDT 2005
Budd-man,
Have to counter a bit on this one -
- a "perfect" maneuver is not synonomous with a maneuver that scores a "10".
- the "perfect" line/distance does accomodate crossbox maneuvers - the book
does not say 150 meters - it says 150 to 175 meters.
Bottom line is this - a good pilot that plans ahead can shift the plane
in/out to easily accomodate the lateral displacement of a forced crossbox
maneuver - and they can do this shift subtly enough that specific downgrades
are not applied for the shift.
I think a well designed pattern should have the crossbox element - The best
pilots putting up the best flights do have a better / more in depth
understanding
of how to present the schedule - which means when the crosswind is nasty,
the best pilots get full benefit of the crossbox maneuver, and when it is
calm, the best pilots seamlessly make the room needed for the crossbox
maneuver.
Regards,
Dave
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jerry Budd" <jerry at buddengineering.com>
To: <discussion at nsrca.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 11, 2005 1:54 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