[NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -- nowjudgeing the M
rcmaster199 at aol.com
rcmaster199 at aol.com
Tue Oct 17 14:05:46 AKDT 2006
Smoothness and Grace implies the rate at which the various elements within maneuvers are entered, performed and exited. Lower rates in general, (unless the requirement is for fast and specified as such, like snaps) look better. They paint a better (and possibly easier) picture of a pilot in control. Smooth entry of rudder in pt rolls for example as opposed to herky jerky (but precise) rudder application. A looser constant radius entry into a fig M looks better than a sharp pitch entry that takes a moment to find the subsequent line. And in that same fig M the half loop should have same radius as the entry and exit so the manuever would look strange if done with very hi rate (tiny radius) looping elements.
SG is a necessary part of Pattern judging standards as long as pattern is a smooth and precise sport. We need to put our heads together and produce some reasonable options as to how to critique it and score it appropriately
SG has nothing to do with the direction one chooses to stall the model
MattK
-----Original Message-----
From: DaveL322 at comcast.net
To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
Sent: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -- nowjudgeing the M
"I can see the downgrade due to lack of S&G due to picking a bad direction
for the stall turns (and the probably downgrade for it looking like a
wingover would potentially be severe) a slight fuselage angle into the wind
is typical of a stall turn, and ttrying to go the other way is ASKING for
the turn to flop if you don't turn early, which rotates around the wingtip
(or some distance further from the fuselage than the wingtip) instead of
near/on the CG."
Absolutely no need for an S+G downgrade for a wingover or a flop - the book provides downgrades (on technical merit) for both.
Dave
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
> To downgrade a technically correct manuever due to a pilot's option
> choice.... not appropriate. So the question is basicly asking who's going
> to ignore the rules.
>
> I can see the downgrade due to lack of S&G due to picking a bad direction
> for the stall turns (and the probably downgrade for it looking like a
> wingover would potentially be severe) a slight fuselage angle into the wind
> is typical of a stall turn, and ttrying to go the other way is ASKING for
> the turn to flop if you don't turn early, which rotates around the wingtip
> (or some distance further from the fuselage than the wingtip) instead of
> near/on the CG.
>
> S&G usually goes hand in hand with doing the maneuv! ers wel l.... and choosing
> your optional directions appropriately.
>
> I find it easier FOR ME to compare roll rate if all the rolls are the same
> direction... thus the presentation of canopy one time and belly the other
> would make it easier for me to judge. (If I get to doing any judging at that
> level...)
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Glen Watson"
> To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'"
> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question --
> nowjudgeing the M
>
>
> > Understood subjectivity will always be part pattern...
> >
> > Let's see a show of hands of those who would apply a downgrade to an M
> > flown
> > technically correct according to the AMA judging criteria although the
> > b! elly > > was seen during 1 or both of the stall turns.
> >
> > Glen
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org
> > [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Mark Atwood
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 2:19 PM
> > To: NSRCA Mailing List
> > Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
> >
> > I would disagree...it IS defined. Figure M with 3/4 rolls. Roll
> > direction
> > is optional, stall direction is optional. That's always been the case
> > unless it's specified otherwise. There's no "implied" roll direction,
> > just
> > one that some think looks better. That will always be the case.
> >
> > Some people do their four points in different directions so as to show the
> > canopy first, or last, wh! ich eve r they feel presents better...Not sure I
> > personally care, but for those that do...go for it. I know I'll catch
> > flack for say this, but this IS a subjective sport. Presentation DOES
> > matter... Always will. It's shouldn't outweigh the objective criteria,
> > but
> > it's not worthless either.
> >
> >
> > On 10/17/06 3:11 PM, "jivey61 at bellsouth.net"
> > wrote:
> >
> >> G
> >> Yes you agree ..but you also see we have to define it now or everybody
> > will
> >> be flying and judging it differently. What a mess that will be.
> >>
> >> Jim Ivey
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "george w. kennie"
> >> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> >> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:5! 0 PM > >> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Jim,
> >>> It certainly will work this way, but your original method will present
> >>> better. With the roll direction being pilots option your original
> >>> ll/rr-rr/ll is a much prettier maneuver. There's something to be said
> >>> for
> >>> presenting the canopy to the judges on rolling maneuvers. I apply this
> >>> technique on all maneuvers with rolling elements unless the specified
> >>> requirement forces otherwise, like reverse K.E.'s. IMHO, you had it
> > right
> >>> the first time!
> >>> G.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From:
& gt; >>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:17 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Bob
> >>>> If I read the Aresti correct the rolls on both vertical lines are the
> >> same
> >>>> direction.This makes it lt-lt and lt-lt coming from the left and rt-rt
> >> and
> >>>> rt-rt coming from the right.Like Jerry said look at top of plane one
> >> time
> >>>> and bottom of the plane next time.
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim Ivey
> >>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>> From: "Bob Kane"
> >>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List"
&g! t; > >>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 1:01 PM
> >>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Wow, this is more complicated than I anticipated. Do you have to roll
> >> the
> >>>> same way for each stall turn? Or can you reverse directions to show
> >>>> the
> >>>> canopy during each stall?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> For example, flying left to right as shown on the aresti, pull 1/4
> >> loop,
> >>>> short line, roll 3/4 left (canopy toward flightline), short line, stall
> >>>> toward the right, short line, roll 3/4 left, short line, push 1/2
> >> outside
> >>>> loop, short line, roll 3/4 right (canopy faces flight line), short
> >>>> line,
> & gt;>>> stall towerd the right, short line, 3/4 roll right, short line, pull
> >>>> 1/4
> >>>> loop.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Bob Kane
> >>>>> getterflash at yahoo.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>>>> From: "jivey61 at bellsouth.net"
> >>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:45:56 PM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Jerry
> >>>>> I looked again at the aresti and I think you are right.The aresti
> >>>>> shows
> >>>>> both u! pline r olls in the same direction.That would let you see the top
> >>>>> one
> >>>>> time and bottom the other time.
> >>>>> My mistake Bob so much for crutches.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> ______________________! _______ __________________
> >>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> >> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> >> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> > NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> > http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
> >
> >
> >
>! > - -
> > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> > Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.4/478 - Release Date: 10/17/2006
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
_______________________________________________
NSRCA-discussion mailing list
NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061017/c9f51131/attachment-0001.html
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list