[NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M"question-verticalsegments

Wed Oct 18 13:58:47 AKDT 2006

The figure M is too high in K-factor to be neglected....I would certainly want to fly it to my advantage....you guys just keep plugging away, it would have to improve the knowledge base for rules interpretation.   These discussion help me anyway:-)

Chris

________________________________

From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black
Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:49 PM
To: NSRCA Mailing List
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M"question-verticalsegments

For the record I agree with Glen and Don that the 'M' "should" be flown with both stall turns being the same height (that's why this caught my attention).  

When writing my question I initially used the word "ambiguous", then after thinking about it I realized that the way the rule is worded it isn't ambiguous, which to me is a problem. The rule states clearly, "The length of the vertical segments is not a judging criteria." If this sentence was left out then we'd have no argument and the general rules would apply, as Glen pointed out. If this text had said, "the height of the maneuver is not a judging criteria" then there'd be no argument. However, the description explicitly says that the length of the vertical segments is not a judging criteria, why state this if they should be the same?  

Again, I'm not arguing that the 'M' should be flown this way, but there's no getting around the fact that it is explicitly stated to the contrary. Shouldn't we consider addressing this in the rules rather than stick our heads in the sand?

It's funny how some people so quickly lost patience with me asking this question when the same people in prior discussions have said we shouldn't make up our own rules but should reference the rule book, basically go by the letter of the law. 

Canopy facing or away... this is clearly objective and silly, but trying to understand exactly what the text says and if it should be changed, I think this is reasonable. 

If you don't have patients to work through this and figure things out logically then you probably should just delete the message and keep the rude comments to yourselves.  

Keith Black

	----- Original Message ----- 

	From: Don Ramsey <mailto:don.ramsey at cox.net>  

	To: NSRCA Mailing List <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

	Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 11:12 AM

	Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question-verticalsegments

	I agree with Glen, the general rules must be followed as well as the specific.  Each maneuver should not require each small detail be described.  Most are already over-defined causing many to not read the regs.  Done properly, the general section should be large and the detail small.  All centered maneuvers are generally symetrical around center.  A top hat at center should have all line lengths equal.  A turnaround top hat may have all line lengths different for positioning and altitude adjustment.  Same for stall turns at center and turnaround stall turns.  All the statement "The length of the vertical segments is not a judging criteria" means is the performance of the model in vertical is not a grading criteria.  

	In general, centered maneuvers that appear to be symetrical should be symetrical.  Centered maneuvers that appear to begin and end at the same altitude should, in fact, begin and end at the same altitude.  The figure "M" is a symetrical maneuver around center with first roll directional optional, stall turn direction optional,  inverted through the bottom half loop, roll direction optional on the second vertical, vertical line lenght the same as the first vertical, stall turn direction optional, upright exit with overall height of the maneuver optional and all radii the same.  Much of this is stated in the maneuver description but what is not specificed is: radii must be the same, rolls must be in the center of the lines, the stall turn has a maximum pivot radius of 1/2 wingspan, the roll rates are the same, etc... That's the general section and it applies.

	Don

		----- Original Message ----- 

		From: Glen Watson <mailto:gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>  

		To: 'NSRCA Mailing List' <mailto:nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>  

		Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 10:14 AM

		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question -verticalsegments

		Keith,

		Here is an interesting passage from the rule book page 77 regarding lines within a maneuver.

		"All lines within a maneuver have a beginning and end which define their length. The length of a line should only be graded when a maneuver contains several lines with a given relationship, as in a square loop. Unequal or misrelated lines should be downgraded according to the severity of the defect. One (1) point is subtracted for a reasonable difference. More points are subtracted for greater differences."

		My take away is the maneuver description implies the vertical line length is not a judge-able item however since there are two vertical lines their length must be of the same reasonable length.

		I for one am beginning to understand the importance of understanding not just the individual maneuver description but also the general descriptions and definitions the rule book provides like the above example.

		Glen

		-----Original Message-----

		From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Keith Black

		Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 12:13 AM

		To: NSRCA Mailing List

		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question - verticalsegments

		Now that we're breaking this down, I'd like some clarification on the

		section of the rule below that states:

		"The length of the vertical segments is not a judging criteria."

		In the strictest translation of this sentence I would say that this means

		that the two stall turns do not need to be the same height, however, this

		seems inconsistent will all other centered maneuvers where two halves of an

		object do have to match in size.

		A looser translation could be that the intention of this verbiage is to

		point out that a shorter 'M' should score as well as a taller 'M', but

		assumes that both sides should be the same height (which isn't stated

		anywhere).

		Unless otherwise clarified, I'd have to deduce that indeed the two stall

		turns don't have to be the same height.

		Keith Black

		----- Original Message ----- 

		From: "Glen Watson" <gwatson11 at houston.rr.com>

		To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

		Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 12:10 PM

		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question

		Below is the Figure M description from page 79-80 of the current AMA rule

		book...Note the statement regarding rolls and stall turn direction are

		pilot's option...I then found this statement "Edit page 79-80 Figure M with

		¼ or ½ rolls" to include ¾ roll options" on the NSRCA page under:

		http://nsrca.org/competition/judging/Patterns2007

		Figure M with 1/4 or 1/2 Rolls: Model pulls up into one-quarter (1/4) loop

		to a vertical track, hesitates then performs prescribed roll, hesitates then

		executes a stall turn through 180 degrees, hesitates, performs

		prescribed roll, hesitates then executes one-half (1/2) outside loop to

		vertical track, hesitates, performs prescribed roll, hesitates, executes a

		stall turn through 180 degrees, hesitates, performs prescribed roll,

		hesitates then recovers with another one-quarter (1/4) loop to level flight.

		Direction of rolls and stall turns are pilot's option. The length of the

		vertical segments is not a judging criteria.

		Downgrades:

		1. Model not vertical at start and finish of rolls

		and stall turns.

		2. Stall turns not exactly 180 degrees.

		3. Model does not execute prescribed rolls.

		4. Rolls not centered in vertical lines.

		5. Bottom of outside half loop not at same altitude

		as entry and exit.

		Regards,

		Glen

		-----Original Message-----

		From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

		[mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Budd

		Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:20 AM

		To: NSRCA Mailing List

		Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question

		Hi Jim,

		Unless the maneuver has changed from 15 years ago all the rolls have

		to be in the same direction, resulting in one stall turn being

		canopy-facing you and the other being belly-facing you (your choice

		as to which comes first).  It's a tough maneuver, especially when the

		wind is blowing other than down the runway.

		Jerry

		>Bob

		>  My memory crutch is,when flying from left to right, the 1st 2 roll

		>directions are left-left and 2nd 2 roll directions are right-right.

		>When flying from the right to left,the 1st 2 roll directions are

		right-right

		>and 2nd 2 roll directions are left-left.

		>Like Arch said the center half  loop is inverted in both cases.

		>Lotsa a upside down.

		> 

		>Jim Ivey

		> 

		>----- Original Message -----

		>From: "Archie Stafford" <rcpattern at stx.rr.com>

		>To: "'NSRCA Mailing List'" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>

		>Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 11:11 AM

		>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question

		> 

		> 

		>>  Bob,

		>> 

		>>  It has to be inverted.  The direction of roll must be the same on every

		>3/4

		>>  roll therefore you end up inverted across the middle.

		>> 

		>>  Arch

		>> 

		>>  -----Original Message-----

		>>  From: nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org

		>>  [mailto:nsrca-discussion-bounces at lists.nsrca.org] On Behalf Of Bob Kane

		>>  Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2006 9:53 AM

		>>  To: nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org

		>>  Subject: [NSRCA-discussion] Masters 2007 Figure "M" question

		>> 

		>>  OK, I'm finally try to fly this thing with a pencil . . . . . .    one

		>>  question I have (so far) is the 1/2 loop between the two stall turns in

		>the

		>>  figure M: Does it matter if it is an inside or outside half loop?  The

		>>  aresti diagram posted on Flying Giants shows it as an outside half loop

		>with

		>>  no option.  Thanks.

		>> 

		>>  Bob Kane

		>>  getterflash at yahoo.com

		>> 

		>> 

		>> 

		>>  _______________________________________________

		>>  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

		-- 

		___________

		Jerry Budd

		Budd Engineering

		(661) 722-5669 Voice/Fax

		(661) 435-0358 Cell Phone

		mailto:jerry at buddengineering.com

		http://www.buddengineering.com

		_______________________________________________

		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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.nsrca.org/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20061018/9406fb62/attachment-0001.html 